Kharak Singh vs State of Uttarakhand

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the applicant and Sri P.S. Bohra, Brief Holder for the State/opposite party.

By way of this criminal miscellaneous application, the order of Sessions Judge dated 7.2.2007 is under challenge whereby the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision No. 19/2006, Kharak Singh v. State. In the said revision, the order of Judicial Magistrate, Laksar dated 5.8.2006 was affirmed.

The facts relating to the issue are that on 26.7.2006, P.S. Khanpur intercepted a tractor-trolley as well as motorcycle. In tractor-trolley 200 liter contraband liquor was recovered while on motorcycle, 40 liters contraband liquor was recovered. The motorcycle and the Tractor-trolley were seized by the police from the spot and submitted a report to the District Magistrate for confiscation of the same u/s 72(1)(e) of Excise Act. This report was submitted by the Station Officer, P.S. Khanpur, Haridwar on 30.7.2006. When the proceedings of confiscation were pending before the District Magistrate, the application was moved by motorcycle owner to release the same and his application was rejected, not only by the Judicial Magistrate, Laksar but also by the order of Sessions Judge in revision, as stated above.

Now more than five years have already elapsed since the Station Officer submitted his report to the District Magistrate for confiscation of the motorcycle and it is not known as to what happened in those proceedings pending before the District Magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge in his impugned order has indicated that Kharak Singh is the registered owner of the questioned vehicle.

In the above circumstances, this C482 petition of Kharak Singh deserves to be allowed. Petition C482 is accordingly allowed at the admission stage itself. Let the motorcycle having the registration No. UA-08-F-8026, Chasis No. B-13975, Engine No. 61231323 be released in favour of applicant-Kharak Singh, provided the same has not been confiscated by the order of the District Magistrate, meanwhile in last five years.