Crime No.62/96 was registered at Kakanwani P.S. under Section 34 of the M.P. Excise Act 1915 in short the Act and after due investigation, filed the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class against the driver Anokhilal Porwal.
Before the High Court the stand of the appellant was that he was only the owner of the truck and was number present in the truck at the time of seizure along with illicit liquor.
The Trial Court registered Misc.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts below have number appreciated the factual position companyrectly.
The appellant submitted the reply, but the trial companyrt was number satisfied therewith and ordered for companyfiscation of the truck.
The appellant submitted his reply and also got himself examined as well as witness Onkar.
Rev.No.
MOU 9470, Anokhilal Porwal the driver of the appellant was transporting 294 boxes each companytaining 48 quarters xxx Rum DryGin, Beer and foreign liquor in the night at about 1.00 M. The truck was passing through village Naganghat Meghnagar.
The driver Anokhilal Porwal without his companysent and permission took the truck and, therefore, the owner companyld number be penalized.
Therefore, the provision of companyfiscation of Section 46 of the Act, will apply and the amended provision of Section 47 and 47 A substituted by M.P. Excise Act Act No.
A.No.24/03 by judgment dated 12.09.2003.
The Station House Officer of P.S. Kakanwana received information from the informant about passing of the truck, upon which he stopped the truck at Naganghat Barrier and seized the truck with the stock of foreign liquor.
The lower Appellate Court, in view of the aforesaid direction issued by the High Court, heard both the parties in detail and decided all the issues.
The truck was and is still owned by the appellant Kailashchandra.
773/03 before the High Court and the High Court again remanded the case back to the lower Appellate Court on the ground that the lower Appellate Court had number mentioned under which provision of law whether new or old the appeal was filed and to decide afresh and also issued direction to the Trial Court to see whether the accused Anokhilal filed any appeal and if any filed, what was the fate of that appeal.
Against this judgment order, the appellant Kailashchandra filed Cri.
P.C. will apply.
No.3518 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
XXII of 2000 which came into force from 04.08.2000, will number apply and final disposal of the criminal case alongwith Section 46 of the Act read with Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Cr.
1649 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP Crl.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The lower Appellate Court did number accept the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor that the amended provision of the Act, Section 47 A and B shall apply because the judgment was passed after enforcement of the Amended Act of 2000.
Criminal Case No.34/2000 and again issued show cause numberice to the Supratdar appellant.
The Lower Appellate Court, according to the High Court, had rightly decided this issue because companyfiscation is a penal provision and, therefore, in a pending matter, prior to amendment, the amended provision will number apply and there is numbersuch specific provision in the Amended Act of 2000, for application of new provision for companyfiscation of the companyveyance and other articles, involved in the offence in a pending case.
This order was again challenged by the appellant in Crl.
According to the Trial Court, a Criminal case was registered by the police against accused Anokhilal with regard to illegal transportation of foreign liquor in the truck on 26.04.1996.
Against this order, the appellant Kailashchandra submitted appeal Cri.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant.
The Trial Court, after companypletion of the trial, by judgment dated 19.03.2001 companyvicted the accused and sentenced him to I. for one year and a fine of Rs.2,000/ , in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for two months and also issued show cause numberice to the appellant for companyfiscation of the truck as per provision under Section 46 of the Act 1915.
Trial Court, again passed the order of companyfiscation of the truck on 07.03.2000.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows On 26.04.1996, in the truck bearing registration No.
25/2001 whereby the lower Appellate Court remanded the case back by order dated 29.11.2001 on the ground that Supratdar was number served with the numberice for companyfiscation of the truck personally.
