Sec.457 Cr.P.C. for Release of the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. TVS XL Moped bearing No.AP 24 AJ 6358 was seized by the Prohibition and Excise Authorities.= LAVURI BALAJI VS THE STATE OF AP., & ANOTHER = Published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRLRC&mno=830&year=2013
Sec.457 Cr.P.C. for Release of the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. TVS XL Moped bearing No.AP 24 AJ 6358 was seized by the Prohibition and Excise Authorities.=
The trial Court returned the said petition on 09-04-2013 holding that the trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
2. It would appear that the trial Court proceeded under the assumption that the case was under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act and that it lacked jurisdiction in view of the prohibition under Section 46E of the A.P. Excise Act. =
whether the case is filed under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act or under the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act. The trial Court then shall have to decide the case on merits if the case is not under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act but it is under the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act.
In the event, the petitioner is not covered by the provisions of the Excise Act, the trial Court shall also consider whether there is prohibition for exercising powers under Section 457 Cr.P.C., if the case is under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act.| CRLRC 830 / 2013 | CRLRCSR 12819 / 2013 |
|
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.830 OF 2013
ORDER:
The vehicle of the petitioner i.e. TVS XL Moped bearing No.AP 24 AJ 6358 was seized by the Prohibition and Excise Authorities.
The petitioner moved a petition before the trial Court under Section 457 Cr.P.C.
The trial Court returned the said petition on 09-04-2013 holding that the trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
2. It would appear that the trial Court proceeded under the assumption that the case was under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act and that it lacked jurisdiction in view of the prohibition under Section 46E of the A.P. Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case against the petitioner was under the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act and not under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act and that Section 46E of the Excise Act has no application.
4. Therefore, it is for the trial Court to consider whether the case is filed under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act or under the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act. The trial Court then shall have to decide the case on merits if the case is not under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act but it is under the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act.
5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order of return, dated 09-04-2013, of the trial Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court and the trial Court shall reconsider the application of the petitioner on merits. In the event, the petitioner is not covered by the provisions of the Excise Act, the trial Court shall also consider whether there is prohibition for exercising powers under Section 457 Cr.P.C., if the case is under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act. The trial Court shall dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. The miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this revision shall stand closed.
______________
K.G. SHANKAR, J
April 26, 2013.
Note:
Furnish CC in three days.
B/O.
Comments
Post a Comment