IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 80 of 2002 Smt. Rajni W/o Laxman Das R/o H.No. 735, Kumhar Garha, Shekhu Pura, Police Station Kankhal D istrict Haridwar. ...…………. Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) 2. Sessions Judge, Haridwar. 3. District Magistrate / Collector, Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th of July 2002, passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2001, whereby said court has affirmed the order dated 17th of August 2001, passed by Collector, Haridwar. 2 3) Brief facts of the case are that on 12th of October 2000, near Shivalik Nagar Turn, a scooter which was being driven by Pappu @ Sudesh, without bearing registration number, was intercepted by the police, and it was found that the accused was carrying 60 pouch of country made liquor without license. On this, the accused was challaned, and Crime No. 153 of 2000, was registered. Simultaneously, the scooter which has chassis No. 006 CBFL 98159 and engine No. CDEBFL 32356 (involved in the crime) was seized, and confiscation proceedings were done under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. Notices were issued to the owner of the vehicle Smt. Rajni (revisionist), and after hearing her, the vehicle was confiscated by the Collector, Haridwar, vide order dated 17th of August 2001. Aggrieved by said order Smt Rajni filed criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which was also dismissed by said court. Hence, this revision. 4) The stand taken by the revisionist is that the scooter was infact given by her to her relation one Satish with specific instruction that he would not do any illegal act with the conveyance. However, it appears that he gave the scooter to accused Pappu @ Sudesh, who was found carrying 60 pouch of country made liquor in the scooter, without license. 3 5) Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, provides that whenever an offence has been committed under the Act, the conveyance used in carrying any package of intoxicant without license, shall be liable to confiscation. Sub-Section (2) of said Section provides that the Collector may exercise the power to that effect after giving notice as required under Sub-Section (5) thereof. 6) The aforementioned provision empowers the Collector to confiscate any vehicle used in commission of any offence punishable under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. As far as the factual explanation given by the revisionist, owner of the vehicle, is concerned, two courts below have applied their mind, and found that the explanation by the revisionist for giving her vehicle to Satish, and finally by him to Pappu @ Sudesh, is not sufficient to release the vehicle from confiscation. 7) This court does not find any error of law committed by the Collector, Haridwar or by the appellate court in affirming the order passed by the Collector. The due process provided in Section 72 of the Act has been complied with before confiscating the conveyance. Needless to say, the vehicle was being used for transporting the country made liquor by concealing the registration number of the vehicle. 4 8) For the reasons as discussed above, this court finds no substance in this revision, which is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 24, 2011. H. Negi 5