Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/1109/2010 of VIJAY KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 30 December 2010
of 2010 Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for State. Heard. By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.12.2010, passed by
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Facts
Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, present for the petitioner.
Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for State.
Heard.
By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.12.2010, passed by revisional court (III F.T.C. / Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar), affirming the order dated 29.10.2010, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.
Brief facts of the case are that a vehicle bearing registration No. DL3 CG / 3006, make Maruti Esteem, was intercepted and found carrying illicit liquor. It appears that the driver of the vehicle confessed the guilt, and convicted. He was sentenced to imprisonment for one day and also directed to pay fine of ` 5,000/-. The vehicle was also seized. The present petitioner’s case is that he is owner of the vehicle and had no knowledge of the offence committed with the vehicle. The petitioner moved a release application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, who rejected the application on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle in view of the provisions contained in Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision, which was also dismissed by the revisional court.
Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order, in its writ jurisdiction.
Therefore, in view of provisions contained in Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, the writ petition is dismissed summarily with the observation that the petitioner is at liberty to move the application before the appropriate authority.
HN
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)30.12.2010