Allahabad High Court refuses to interfere with confiscation under the U.P. Excise Act, but directs DGP to investigate how seized vehicle was allegedly taken from police custody and used in a fatal accident.
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the confiscation of a Mahindra XUV allegedly used for transporting country-made liquor, finding no illegality in the orders passed by the District Magistrate and the appellate court. At the same time, the Court expressed serious concern over the alleged unauthorized use of the seized vehicle by police personnel during the pendency of confiscation proceedings and directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to conduct an independent enquiry.
Justice Anil Kumar-X delivered the judgment in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by Rahul @ Dharamdev, who had challenged the confiscation of his vehicle bearing registration number UP-16 AH-1505. The vehicle had been seized in connection with an excise case after police allegedly recovered 19 cartons of country-made liquor from it on 16 April 2021.
According to the case record, the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act after the seizure was reported. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice and submitted objections, but the District Magistrate rejected them and ordered confiscation of the vehicle on 25 June 2021. The order also permitted the owner to redeem the vehicle by depositing its assessed market value of Rs. 6,45,000 within one month, failing which the vehicle was to be auctioned. The appellate court later affirmed the confiscation on 28 October 2022.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated due to election rivalry and that no independent witnesses or forensic examination supported the prosecution version. He also raised a more serious allegation: that despite seizure of the vehicle, police personnel from Police Station Ramghat allegedly took the vehicle out on 4 June 2021 for a raid, and it later met with a fatal accident in Mathura on 7 June 2021.
The State admitted that the vehicle had been taken out and said it was done by two constables, allegedly with the help of the Head Moharrir, without the knowledge of the SHO. The Court found this explanation deeply troubling. It observed that once the vehicle had been seized and confiscation proceedings were pending, the police had no authority to use it for personal or official purposes except in accordance with law.
While dismissing the challenge to the confiscation, the Court said the petitioner had failed to produce any substantive material to prove false implication or planting of liquor. Mere denial, it held, was not enough to overturn the confiscation orders.
However, the Court strongly criticised the departmental action taken against the police personnel involved. It noted that the punishment of merely awarding censure entries appeared wholly inadequate given the gravity of the allegations, which included unauthorized removal and use of seized property and a fatal accident. The Court said the matter required scrutiny not only from the standpoint of departmental misconduct but also possible criminal liability.
In a significant direction, the Court ordered the Director General of Police to conduct a discreet and independent enquiry, either personally or through a senior officer unconnected with the district or earlier proceedings. The enquiry will examine the circumstances in which the vehicle was taken out, the role of the Head Moharrir, constables and SHO, the accident and subsequent seizure in another criminal case, the adequacy of departmental proceedings, and whether offences such as theft, criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be made out.
The DGP has been asked to submit a compliance report within eight weeks.
Bottom Line :
Confiscation of vehicle under Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act upheld where petitioner failed to produce cogent material showing false implication; however, serious irregularity in unauthorised use of seized vehicle by police during pendency of confiscation proceedings led Court to direct Director General of Police to conduct independent discreet enquiry into custodial breach, adequacy of departmental action and possible criminal liability.
Statutory provision(s): Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, Sections 60 and 63 of the U.P. Excise Act, Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 191(2), 61(2), 115(2), 352, 333 and 314(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Rahul @ Dharamdev v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987069
