THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 393 of 2008 Narender Kumar S/o Shri Dharam Pal Singh R/o Village Jhabiran, Police Station Kotwali Manglaur District – Haridwar …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…. Respondent Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the State. 2. This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 04/10/2007 passed by A.D.M. Haridwar in Case No. 3 of 2007, State Vs. Narender Kumar u/s 60/72 Excise Act, Police Station Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar. 3. The fact in nutshell is that 90 liters of illicit liquor was recovered from Ambasdor Car No. URM 8571. Thereafter, case was registered in the Police Station Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar as Case Crime No. 409 of 2006 u/s 60/70 of the Excise Act. The proceedings of the confiscation were also carried out by the Excise Department as the said vehicle was being used to carry illicit liquor in the State. 4. The petitioner was given notice to appear before the A.D.M., Haridwar. Inspite of service upon the petitioner, he did not appear before the A.D.M. Thereafter, the proceedings proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and the vehicle was confiscated by the A.D.M. on 04/10/2007. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed. 2 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said vehicle was in the possession of the police station and there is likelihood of getting it damaged; the vehicle may be released in favour of the petitioner and as and when the vehicle would be required to be produced in the Court, the petitioner would produce the same in the Court. The provision of Section 72 is self explanatory as to how the vehicle is to be confiscated. After giving due notice, the vehicle has been confiscated by the Excise Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate what illegality has been committed by the A.D.M. while confiscating the vehicle. The vehicle is to be sold in public auction as stated in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State. After the confiscation of the vehicle, the petitioner has no right to get the vehicle released in his favour. 6. In view of the above, the petition fails and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 21.04.2009 Shiv