HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.6452 of 2014 Date: 30-7-2014 Between Repaka Srinivasa Rao and … Petitioner/ Owner of stock The State, Through SHO, Chantalapudi Proh. & Excise Station, West Godavari District, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad … Respondent/ Complainant HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.6452 of 2014 Order:
The petitioner challenges the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District dated 04-02-2014. 90 bags of black jaggery was seized in respect of the offences under Section 34(e) read with Sections 34(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. The petitioner/owner of the stock sought for interim custody of the property seized. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi dismissed the petition holding that the Court did not have jurisdiction. Assailing the same, the present petition is laid.
2. In M/s.Amruthavarshini Dairy Farms Private Limited v. The State (Criminal Revision Case No.2484 of 2012, dated 11-12-2012), a learned Single Judge of this Court held that Criminal Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for interim custody of the vehicle involved in offence under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act. In
[1]
P.Swarupa v. State of A.P. , a Division Bench of this Court held that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim custody of the property either if the case is exclusively registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act or under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Prohibition Act. The Division Bench further clarified that if the case is laid exclusively under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, it is the Deputy Commissioner of Excise who is entitled to dispose of the property.
[2]
3. In Public Prosecutor v. G.Marimuthu Konar , a case was registered under the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act. A lorry was seized under the provisions of the Forest Act. A learned single Judge of this Court held that the Magistrate has powers to dispose of the property under Section 44(4) of the Forest Act as well as under Section 457 Cr.P.C.
[3]
4. In Ulli Bhaskar v. State of A.P. , black jaggery and alum were seized under the provisions of the Excise Act and under the provisions of Prohibition Act.
The Court held that black jaggery and alum are not intoxicants and that their sale cannot be subject matter of punishment.
5. In Chindura Muthaiah & Co., Kamareddy, Nizamabad District, A.P. v. Deputy Commissioner of
[4]
Prohibition and Excise, Karimnagar, A.P. , the Court ordered return of a vehicle involved in an offence under Section 34(e) of the Excise Act.
6. In an unreported decision in Criminal Revision Case No.2484 of 2012, dated 11-12-2012, (M/s. Amruthavarshini Dairy Farms Pvt. Ltd. v.
The State), the petitioner was involved in an offence under the Prohibition Act. On the basis of P.Swarupa’s case (1 supra), the Court considered it appropriate to return the vehicle. Further, in Public Prosecutor v. G.Marimuthu Konar’s case (2 supra), the Court held that even when the property is seized under the provisions of the Forest Act, a Judicial Magistrate of First Class is entitled to grant interim custody of the vehicle under the provisions of Section 457 Cr.P.C. In view of these decisions, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to interim custody of the property.
7. Albeit it was observed in P.Swarupa’s case ( 1 supra) that the Court has no jurisdiction when the offence involved is under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, a different view was taken by this Court in M/s. Amruthavarshini Dairy Farms Pvt. Ltd. v.
The State (Crl.R.C.No.2484 of 2012, dated 11-12-2012). In view of M/s. Amruthavarshini Dairy Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. The State (Crl.R.C.No.2484 of 2012, dated
11-12-2012), I consider that the Criminal Court has got jurisdiction to pass orders regarding the disposal of property, more so by way of interim custody.
8. Consequently, this criminal petition is disposed of remitting the case to the Trial Court informing the Trial Court that the Trial Court has jurisdiction under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C to dispose of the property involved. The Trial Court shall consider the application of the petitioner on merits considering that the Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the application and dispose of the same within 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
30th July, 2014. Ak HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.6452 of 2014 30th July, 2014. (Ak)
[1] 1995 (3) ALD 1090 (D.B.)
[2] LAWS(APH)-1980-12-35/APLJ-1981-1-84
[3] 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 561 (AP)
[4] 2006 (2) ALD 367