2014 (1) TMI 1208 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Release of vehicle in connection with the offence under the Delhi Excise Act - Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini refused to release the vehicle - High Court released vehicle using power u/s 451 - Held that - the general provision of Section 451 of the Code with regard to the custody and disposal of the property or for that matter by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person entitled to possession thereof under Section 452 of the Code or that of Section 457 authorising a Magistrate to make an order for disposal of property, if seized by an officer and not produced before a criminal court during an inquiry or trial, however, has to yield where a statute makes a special provision with regard to its confiscation and disposal. In the present case, the Legislature has used a non-obstante clause not only in Section 59 but also in Section 61 of the Act. As is well settled, a non-obstante clause is a legislative device to give effect to the enacting part of the section in case of conflict over the provisions mentioned in the non-obstante clause. Hence, Section 451, 452 and 457 of the Code must yield to the provisions of the Act and there is no escape from the conclusion that the Magistrate or for that matter the High Court, while dealing with the case of seizure of vehicle under the Act, has any power to pass an order dealing with the interim custody of the vehicle on security or its release thereof. The High Court was in error in taking a view to the contrary and in setting aside the orders passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge on that basis - impugned order of the High Court is found to be vulnerable and, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to stand - High Court exceeded in its jurisdiction in directing for release of the vehicle on security - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to order release of a vehicle on security under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Interpretation of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 regarding the confiscation of vehicles used for transporting intoxicants.
3. Application of Section 61 of the Act in barring courts from making orders regarding property seized in connection with an offence.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court to order the release of a vehicle on security under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court had directed the release of a vehicle seized in connection with an offence under the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. The appellant contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to pass such an order due to the embargo put by Section 61 of the Act. The respondent argued that the High Court's power under Section 451 of the Code allowed for the release of the vehicle on security. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Act and the Code to determine the appropriate course of action.

2. The interpretation of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 regarding the confiscation of vehicles used for transporting intoxicants was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Court examined Section 33(a) of the Act, which provides for penalties related to unlawful transportation of intoxicants, and Section 58(d), which deals with the confiscation of conveyances used for carrying such items. The Court emphasized that under the Act, any vehicle used for transporting intoxicants is liable for confiscation, and the power of confiscation lies with the Deputy Commissioner as per Section 59 of the Act. The Court highlighted the non-obstante clause in Section 61, which bars courts from making orders concerning property seized in connection with an offence under the Act.

3. The application of Section 61 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 in barring courts from making orders regarding property seized in connection with an offence was a pivotal issue in the judgment. The Court reiterated that Section 61 specifically prohibits courts from exercising jurisdiction over property used in committing an offence and seized under the Act. The Court emphasized that the provisions of the Act, including those related to confiscation and disposal of seized property, must prevail over general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to the special provisions of the Act in cases involving the seizure of vehicles used for transporting intoxicants.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing the release of the vehicle on security. The judgment clarified the limitations on court jurisdiction under the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 and emphasized the primacy of the Act's provisions regarding confiscation and disposal of property seized in connection with offences under the Act.