STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Vs. NARENDER
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-10
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
January 06,2014
State (Nct Of Delhi)
Appellant
VERSUS
NARENDER
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. K A KUNCHINDAMMED [REFERRED TO]OMA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
HARUN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-27] [REFERRED TO]AKHILESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
ENQUIRY OFFICER-FOREST RANGE OFFICER VS. MD. SAHEB [LAWS(CAL)-2016-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-309] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT DUBEY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-7-83] [REFERRED TO]
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
SHEELA DEVI VS. OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER EXCISE GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-12-55] [REFERRED TO]
P. ARULJOTHI IN W.P. NO. 33987 OF 2015 VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2017-11-386] [REFERRED TO]
KHUMLO ABI ANAL VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [LAWS(MANIP)-2022-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. EJARLA BADARINATH [LAWS(APH)-2022-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
MUSTAFA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2022-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
JAIKAWAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
KALU VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-9-162] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN S/O SAMDA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
MCP ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-12-253] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-4-125] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR NARMADA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-336] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. MANJURI BIBI AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2015-11-42] [REFERRED]
VISHNU PRASAD VAISHNAV VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2014-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-308] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK HOODA VS. EXCISE COMMISSIONER [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-20] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR @ PARMOD KUMAR SON OF DINANATH SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-9-121] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-76] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN MEHRAT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-145] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
VIKKI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-46] [REFERRED TO]
AMARJEET VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-115] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The State of Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated 28th of November, 2011 passed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal M.C. No. 2540 of 2011, whereby it had directed for release of the vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-56-7290 to the registered owner on security, has preferred this special leave petition.
(2.)Leave granted.
(3.)Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that while constables Raghmender Singh and Sunil were on night patrolling duty at Kirari Nithari turn on 17th of April, 2011, they saw a vehicle coming from the side of the Nithari Village. Constable Raghmender Singh signalled the driver to stop the vehicle, but he did not accede to his command and turned the vehicle into the Prem Nagar Extension Lane. Both the constables chased the vehicle on their motorcycle and the driver of the vehicle, apprehending that he would be caught, left the vehicle and ran away from the place, taking advantage of the darkness. The vehicle abandoned by the driver was "Cruiser Force" and had registration No. HR-56- 7290. After opening of the windows of the vehicle, 27 Cartons, each containing 12 bottles of 750 ml. Mashaledar country-made liquor and 20 Cartons, each containing 48 quarters of Besto Whisky were found inside the vehicle. All the 47 Cartons were embossed with 'Sale in Haryana only'. Constable Raghmender Singh gave a report to the police and on that basis FIR No. 112 of 2011 dated 17.04.2011 was registered at Aman Vihar Police Station under Section 33(a) and Section 58 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. During the course of investigation, Narender, respondent herein, claiming to be the owner of the vehicle, filed an application for its release on security, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, who, by his order dated 24th of May, 2011 rejected the same, inter alia, holding that he has no power to release the vehicle seized in connection with the offence under the Delhi Excise Act. The respondent again filed an application for the same relief i.e. for release of the vehicle on security before the Metropolitan Magistrate but the said application also met with the same fate. By order-dated 14th of July, 2011, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate declined to pass the order for release, inter alia, observing that any order directing for release of the vehicle on security would amount to review of the order dated 24th of May, 2011, which power the court did not possess.
(2.)Leave granted.
(3.)Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that while constables Raghmender Singh and Sunil were on night patrolling duty at Kirari Nithari turn on 17th of April, 2011, they saw a vehicle coming from the side of the Nithari Village. Constable Raghmender Singh signalled the driver to stop the vehicle, but he did not accede to his command and turned the vehicle into the Prem Nagar Extension Lane. Both the constables chased the vehicle on their motorcycle and the driver of the vehicle, apprehending that he would be caught, left the vehicle and ran away from the place, taking advantage of the darkness. The vehicle abandoned by the driver was "Cruiser Force" and had registration No. HR-56- 7290. After opening of the windows of the vehicle, 27 Cartons, each containing 12 bottles of 750 ml. Mashaledar country-made liquor and 20 Cartons, each containing 48 quarters of Besto Whisky were found inside the vehicle. All the 47 Cartons were embossed with 'Sale in Haryana only'. Constable Raghmender Singh gave a report to the police and on that basis FIR No. 112 of 2011 dated 17.04.2011 was registered at Aman Vihar Police Station under Section 33(a) and Section 58 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. During the course of investigation, Narender, respondent herein, claiming to be the owner of the vehicle, filed an application for its release on security, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, who, by his order dated 24th of May, 2011 rejected the same, inter alia, holding that he has no power to release the vehicle seized in connection with the offence under the Delhi Excise Act. The respondent again filed an application for the same relief i.e. for release of the vehicle on security before the Metropolitan Magistrate but the said application also met with the same fate. By order-dated 14th of July, 2011, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate declined to pass the order for release, inter alia, observing that any order directing for release of the vehicle on security would amount to review of the order dated 24th of May, 2011, which power the court did not possess.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.