M.Wahajuddin - (1.) THE applicant has come forward with a prayer that the proceedings concerning truck as well as the foreign liquor pending before the Collector Kanpur be quashed. THE applicant is the Managing Director of M/s. Sachdeva Roadlines (P) Ltd. Indore, doing transport business. Large number of crates of imported wine were being transported by the applicants' truck involved and the truck was detained at Kanpur and the police authorities seized the truck and the foreign liquor and a case under the Excise Act was launched. It would appear than the applicant moved an application before the Magistrate concerned for release of the property in applicants' favour. THE court passed an order dated 10-10-1984 to the effect that the consignment in question be released is favour of the applicant as custodian and carrier of the property on executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount,
(2.) IT is being urged that as by this order the court held that the papers are in order and in the mind of the court there is nothing to doubt the genuineness of the papers concerning the truck, the property has to be released. I may at the very out set observe that this order of the Magistrate is an interlocutory order. The criminal case is still pending and even the trial has not commenced. IT is argued that it is the order of the Magistrate, who would be holding the trial, which has to prevail and any proceedings before the Collector in respect of the property is a misnomer and cannot proceed. I may at this stage quote sub-clause (2) of Section 72 of the Act, as relied upon :- " 72 (2) Where anything or animal is seized under any provision of this Act and the Collector is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that an offence has been committed due to which such thing or animal has become liable to confiscation under sub-section (1), he may order confiscation of such thing or animal whether or not a prosecution for such offence has been instituted ; Provided that in the case of anything (except an intoxicant) or animal referred to sub-section 1, the owner thereof shall be given an option to pay in lieu of its confiscation such fine as the Collector thinks adequare not exceeding its market value on the date of its seizure. " The expression used is express and significant. What is provided is that the Collector is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded that an offence has been committed concerning the property involved. The Act is a special Act and naturally will override the provisions of the general Act. Once it is expressly provided that the Collector is to be satisfied whether an offence has been committed and to proceed regarding confiscation etc. of the vehicle or the thing, the Collector is vested with than jurisdiction and even if for any interlocutory order the Magistrate observed otherwise, that will not bar the jurisdiction of the Collector. It was brought to the notice of the Magistrate that the proceeding has started before the Collector, but he still did not take notice of section 72 (2) of Excise Act. Of course, the Magistrate has the ultimate jurisdiction under sub-section (8) of Section 72 of the Act concerning the disposal of the property, in case the prosecution is launched and his order would be final, but that stage has not reached. On the authority of the case of State of U. P. v. R. A. Jaiswal, 1983 ALJ 1197 where Collector is exercising any powers, this Court will not exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. That case relates to the provisions of Section 6-A to 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act. The principles, however, would apply to any such powers conferred under any other Special Act. So, no interference can be made by this court and the application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed. I may, however, make it' clear that whatever orders are passed by the Collector 'will be subject to the ultimate orders which are passed under Section 72 (8) of the Excise Act by the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction on institution of the case, but not at any earlier stage.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the notice given by the Collector is confined to the truck and not to the liquor." It appears to be so but this point can well be raised before the Collector.;