2015 (2) TMI 561 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate - Seizure of vehicle - commission of offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 - Whether the Court having jurisdiction to try offences covered by clause (a) or (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 34 will have the jurisdiction to grant custody of the vehicle seized, after it has received information from the Collector under clause (a) of sub-Section (3) of Section 47A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 about the initiation of the proceedings for confiscation of seized vehicle. Held that - Petitioner s vehicle was found involved in the commission of the excise offences under Section 34 of the Act, 1915 and the Collector having initiated proceedings for confiscation of the said vehicle under Section 47- A of the Act, 1915 and intimated to the trial Court having jurisdiction to try the offences under clause (a) of sub-Section 3 of Section 47-A of the Act, 1915 about the initiation of the proceedings for confiscation of the seized vehicle and, as such, the provisions of Section 47-D of the Act, 1915 squarely attracts expressly barring the jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate to grant interim custody under Section 457 of the Code, the trial Magistrate ceased to have jurisdiction to make order from the date when he received intimation in the preset case i.e. 28.8.2014 to make any order about the disposal of the said vehicle and, as such, the trial Magistrate has rightly held that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant custody after initiation and intimation of the said confiscation proceedings to the Court having jurisdiction; and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is absolutely justified in affirming the order passed by the trial Magistrate refusing to interfere with the said order, as such, order passed by the learned Magistrate and duly affirmed by the revisional Court is based on the material available on record, which does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, the judgment relied upon by Mr. Pradhan passed by this Court in Sujeet Kumar Khandekar 2015 (2) TMI 779 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT has not considered the express bar of Section 47-D of the Act, 1915, therefore, that judgment is clearly distinguishable. - petition is held to be devoid of merit - Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant custody of the vehicle seized for excise offence in view of Section 47-D of the Act of 1915. - Decided against Petitioner.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court to grant custody of a seized vehicle under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 47-D of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.
3. Interaction between the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court to Grant Custody of a Seized Vehicle:
The central legal issue revolves around whether the Court with jurisdiction to try offences under Section 34 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, can grant custody of a vehicle seized for such offences after receiving information from the Collector about the initiation of confiscation proceedings.

2. Interpretation and Application of Section 47-D of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915:
Section 47-D explicitly bars the jurisdiction of the Court to make any order regarding the disposal or custody of the seized vehicle once the Collector has initiated confiscation proceedings and informed the Court. The provision is overriding and disabling, meaning it takes precedence over any other law in force, including the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court emphasized that once the trial Magistrate receives intimation from the Collector under Section 47-A(3)(a) about the initiation of confiscation proceedings, the Court loses jurisdiction to issue any orders regarding the seized vehicle.

3. Interaction Between Provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The Court referred to precedents, such as the Supreme Court's decision in Divisional Forest Officer vs. G.V. Sudhaker Rao, which established that specific statutory provisions regarding confiscation and disposal of property take precedence over the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly, in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Narender, the Supreme Court held that special provisions in the Delhi Excise Act override the general provisions of the Code regarding the custody and disposal of seized property. The Court also cited the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shrish Agrawal vs. State of M.P., which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 47-D.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the petitioner's vehicle was involved in an excise offence and that the Collector had initiated confiscation proceedings and informed the trial Magistrate. Consequently, Section 47-D barred the Magistrate from granting custody of the vehicle. The trial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge correctly applied the law, and the petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner was distinguished as it did not consider the express bar of Section 47-D.

Head Note:
The Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant custody of the vehicle seized for an excise offence in view of Section 47-D of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

← Previous Next →