9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL J. Appellant Through: Dr. Ashutosh, Adv. Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala with Mr. Amish Aggarwala, Advs. O R D E R 1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.11.2016 in Crl.M.C.No.4316/2016. 2. In the first instance, we have heard the learned counsel for both the parties on the issue of maintainability of this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/DRI placed reliance upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in C.S. Agarwal vs. State Ors.(2011) 125 DRJ 241 (Del.) FB to substantiate his contention that no appeal can be maintained under Clause 10 of Letters Patent against an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lease of the vehicle in question subject to certain terms and conditions. The said order has been challenged by DRI in this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No.4316/2016 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and by order dated 18.11.2016, the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 31.08.2016 has been stayed. The appellant filed Crl.M.A. 20232/2016 for vacating the order dated 18.11.2016. However, the learned Single Judge by order dated 23.12.2016 adjourned the said Miscellaneous Application to 25.05.2017. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed. 7. In Harvinder Singh vs. Union of India (supra), the appellant's writ petition seeking his release from detention under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely preventive, to prevent the detenu from indulging in certain activities for a specified period. We over rule the petitioner's objection. 8. Drawing analogy from the above analysis, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the seizure of the vehicle under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 on mere suspicion that the same is liable to confiscation under the said Act cannot be considered as a proceeding under the criminal jurisdiction and consequently, the order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be considered as an order passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. 9. Similar contention made on behalf of the appellants in C.S. Agarwal vs. State Ors. (supra) was not accepted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e civil or not depends upon the nature of the right violated and the appropriate relief which may be claimed and not upon the nature of the Tribunal which is invested with authority to grant relief. In the process, following pertinent observations were made which are apposite in our context: A criminal proceeding on the other hand is ordinarily one in which if carried to its conclusion it may result in the imposition of sentences such as death, imprisonment, fine or forfeiture of property. The Court was, thus, categorical that even in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when the High Court is exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, the nature of proceedings, whether civil or criminal, would depend upon the nature o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nr. vs. Ishwar Lal Bhagwan Das and Anr. (supra), we have no manner of doubt to conclude that the order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge was made in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. In fact, the appellant himself invoked the criminal law proceedings and the entire matter was looked into from the criminal law perspective. 13. It may also be added that unlike Harvinder Singh vs. Union of India (surpa) and C.S. Agarwal vs. State (supra) which arose out of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present case arises out of the proceedings in a Criminal Miscellaneous Case pending before the learned Single Judge under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
