IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 193 of 2005 Majhola Distillery & Chemical Works …..…..Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. …….….…..Respondents. Present: Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. R.K. Raizada, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 to 4. Date of Decision : 27.8.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) 1. This application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed for non prosecution on 25.3.2008. This matter has now come up on a restoration application of the applicant. 2. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1971 and in order to secure the ends of justice, present restoration application is allowed. The order dated 25.3.2008 is recalled and the case is restored to its original number. 3. The case is now heard on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that a case was instituted under Section 60 of the Excise Act against Shri Pooran Singh, S/o Shrangara Singh, Rakhwant Singh S/o Darshan Singh and Shri Sohan Deen (the Distillery Manager). Although the finding of the trial Court was very specific to the effect that Pooran Singh was caught in illegally transporting country liquor, other co-accused namely Rakhwant Singh and Shri Sohan Deen were given the benefit of doubt and were acquitted. However, the consignment of the entire country liquor so seized was taken into custody. Subsequently, an application was moved by the applicants under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. for delivery of the same to the applicants 2 i.e. Majhola Distillery. An application was also moved by the Excise Authorities, wherein it was stated that the country liquor is now more than 12 years old and it is not fit for human consumption, and therefore, in the interest of justice, it must be destroyed. 5. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate after considering all the relevant factors, came to the conclusion that the country liquor is not fit for human consumption and on 9.9.2002 orders were passed for destruction of the same. Against this order, applicant no. 2 preferred a Criminal Revision before the District & Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar being Criminal Revision No. 52A/2002 Distillery Manager, Majhola Distillery & Chemical Works, Majhola, District Pilibhit Vs. State, which was dismissed on 18.12.2004 and the order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima was affirmed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants states that there was no justification for the Court to have presumed that the country liquor was not fit for human consumption without sending the liquor for examination. This contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that the country liquor was more than 12 years old, and therefore, ordinarily such material is not fit for human consumption. The second argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the second order dated 9.9.2002 in fact amounts to review of the earlier order dated 20.10.2000 is also entirely misconceived. These are two different proceedings. The trial has actually concluded and two accused namely Rakhwant Singh and Sohan Deen were acquitted on benefit of doubt vide order dated 20.10.2000. However, one Pooran Singh was found in possession of the unauthorized country liquor, who though could not be sentenced as he died before a sentence could be pronounced against him. There were later two separate applications, one filed by the Majhola Distillery for release of the country liquor and another filed by the Excise Department for destruction of the same as it was 12 years old. The order dated 9.9.2002 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in Criminal Case No. 601 of 1997 State Vs. Sohan Deen and others and the order dated 3 18.12.2004 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 52A/2002, which have been impugned in this application, appear to be just and proper. There is no scope for interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The order (which has presently been impugned) for destruction of the country liquor was a proper order as firstly the present applicant had no legally sustainable or proved claim on the property. Moreover, in public interest as well its destruction was necessary as it was unfit for human consumption. 7. The instant C-482 petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 27.08.2010 Rathour