State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs. Atul Kumar Mishra
Held
The Court held that the revision filed by the State was not maintainable. The reasoning was based on Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C., which prohibits the exercise of revisional powers in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. The Court found that the order of seizure of goods, and consequently the appellate order directing their release, was interlocutory in nature. The Additional District Magistrate had merely declined to release the seized goods, and the appellate court's order for release, even with conditions, did not finally determine the rights of the parties or the ultimate fate of the seized goods. Therefore, the revision was dismissed as not maintainable.
Facts
The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a criminal revision challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri. This appellate order had directed the release of a truck and its contents, seized during a surprise inspection of M/s Govind Industries. The inspection revealed fake fertilizers, illegal storage, and raw materials. The respondent's truck, loaded with fertilizer, was among the seized items. The Additional District Magistrate had initially ordered the confiscation of the seized goods due to their perishable nature and refused their release. The respondent appealed this order, and the appellate court, finding the goods perishable and noting the respondent had produced valid transportation documents, ordered their release, subject to certain conditions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the revision filed by the State under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by the appellate court. The State contended that the revision was maintainable as it challenged the appellate court's order allowing the release of seized goods. The respondent argued that the order of release was interlocutory in nature, and therefore, the revision was barred under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. The court had to decide if the appellate court's order directing the release of perishable goods, subject to conditions, constituted an interlocutory order.
Sections Cited
Section 397, Section 397(1), Section 397(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:939 Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 464 of 2023 Revisionist :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Opposite Party :- Atul Kumar Mishra Counsel for Revisionist :- G.A.,Ram Asarey Verma Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. and Sri Ram Asarey Verma, the learned counsel for the respondent.
Sri Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, the District Agriculture Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri is also present in compliance of the order dated 22.12.2023, passed by this court.
The instant revision has been filed by the State under Section 397 (1), 401 of Cr.P.C. assailing the validity of the order dated 03.04.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Court No.4/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2023. 4. The aforesaid appeal filed against an order dated 06.03.2023, passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No.132 of 2023, under Section 6-A of U.P. Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The aforesaid order states that a team of officials had carried out su
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.