*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO + WRIT PETITION No. 15375 OF 2014 % Dated: 11.06.2014 BETWEEN Puligolu Praveen S/o Mani Resident of T.N. Palem, H/o Akkaram Palli Tirupati 517501 Chittoor District. …… Petitioner AND The Deputy Superintendent of Police Tirupati, Chittoor District and 3 others …….. Defendants ! Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s P. Jagadish Chandra Prasad ^Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Home <Gist:
>Head Note:
? Citations: (1977) 4 SCC 358 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 15375 of 2014
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the seizure of the motor vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 03 TB 3442.
It appears, the vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 03 TB 3442 has been intercepted at Ayyanagaripalli Village, Vadamalapeta Mandal, Chittoor District. It was found carrying 50 cartons load of 180 ml. brandy bottles, each box was said to be containing 48 bottles. The police suspected that the transportation of this alcoholic beverage is not authorized one and hence, they registered it as Crime No. 35 of 2014 on 29.03.2014. The petitioner has not yet approached the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise for securing interim custody of the vehicle.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has since secured instructions and he would submit that the 1st accused has already approached the IV Additional Sessions Judge’s Court at Tirupati which granted him anticipatory bail, while the other accused are absconding. The motor vehicle in question was deposited before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Puttur on 07.06.2014 along with Form-66 prescribed for the said purpose, while the quantity of the brandy carried therein has been handed over to the Excise Department.
Section 7 of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, prohibited any buying, selling or possessing or consumption of liquor otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the said Act or the A.P. Excise Act, as the case be. Section 8 of the A.P. Prohibition Act provided for punishment for buying or selling or consuming liquor contrary to Section 7 of the said Act. Further, if an offence is committed under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, for which purpose a motor vehicle is also used, such a motor vehicle is liable to be confiscated in terms of the provision contained under Section 12 of the said Act. As per Section 13 of the said Act, where anything liable for confiscation under Section 12 is seized and detailed, such property shall be produced before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, who can order for confiscation of such property whether or not prosecution is instituted. Further, the Deputy Commissioner has been empowered to accept such sum of money in lieu of confiscation and release the vehicles reasonably suspected of in any offence falling under Sub- clause (i) of Clause (b) of Section 8 of the Act. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise of the division concerned has been conferred the power of finalizing the confiscation proceedings and the incidental power of entrusting the interim custody of any such motor vehicle involved flows from. By entrusting the interim custody, the need for warehousing of the motor vehicle in a good condition can be satisfactorily avoided. Further a motor vehicle, if, is kept idle and allowed to gain dust and other particles around, the prospects would be such that the engine can get jammed as the electronic parts, which are used in the manufacture of the motor vehicles, are fairly sensitive and accumulation of dust is recognized as one of the sources, which render the electronic components fail to function properly later on. Hence, a motor vehicle seized cannot be left unattended to and exposed to rain or shine, which might result in greatly diminishing its value. Any such action can result in a possible loss to the exchequer and in case the proceedings end up in favour of the claimant, the State gets exposed to the risk of requiring to pay damages to the claimant. Above all, securing suitable warehousing facilities for safe-keeping of the motor vehicles is an enormous task. The necessary expenditure for warehousing has to be paid for by the State initially. In these set of circumstances, the balance of convenience would lie in entrusting the interim custody to the true owner of the motor vehicle, provided he produces a copy of the Registration Certificate, his identity proof by producing either Aadhar card or PAN Card or first page of any savings account maintained with any of the nationalized banks where the address of the owner of the vehicle can be found. Further, till the allegations are brought home by producing all relevant material in support of the charge, the owner of a motor vehicle has to be presumed to be innocent of the charge.
I n Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of [1] Mysore and another , the Supreme Court observed as under:
"4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what
is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain its ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquire or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance."
Hence, entrustment of interim custody of the motor vehicle subserves the interests of the State and that of the owner of the motor vehicle. While entrusting the interim custody, it shall be open to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise to get the vehicle valued by referring it to the Motor Vehicle Inspector and insist the petitioner to either produce a Fixed Deposit Receipt for a sum not exceeding 50% of its value drawn on any nationalized bank or secure a bank guarantee for a n amount equivalent to 50% of the value o f the vehicle from any nationalized bank. Further, the petitioner shall also be asked to deposit two sufficiently-stamped registered postal covers, superscribed with the address of the owner of the motor vehicle, so that one of them can be used by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise for intimating the date of hearing to enable the petitioner to participate in the confiscation proceedings and the second cover can be used for communicating the order passed by the confiscating authority. Any Application that may be filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise seeking interim custody of the vehicle may be disposed of within a maximum period of 15 days from the date of filing of such an Application.
With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J
11th June 2014
Issue CC tomorrow.
ksld note: LR copy to be marked
[1] (1977) 4 SCC 358