Mr. Harditsingh Surendrasingh ... vs Additional Superintendent Of ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 523 Bom

        J-cwp883.17.odt                                                                                                  1/3 


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.883 OF 2017


        Mr. Harditsingh Surendrasingh Gill,
        Age 24 years, 
        Occupation : Business,
        R/o. Plot No.96, Gurunanak Washing Center,
        Deepak Nagar, Jaripatka, Nagpur.                                            :      PETITIONER

                           ...VERSUS...

        1.    Additional Superintendent of Police,
               Competent Authority, Gadchiroli.

        2.    Police Station Officer,
               Police Station Gadchiroli.                                            :      RESPONDENTS


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri R.R. Vyas, Advocate for the Petitioner.
        Shri H.D. Dubey, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                      CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 16 JANUARY, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally by consent.

4. It is not in dispute that the prosecution launched against the

J-cwp883.17.odt 2/3

petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 65(a), 98(1)(c) and

83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act arising from Crime No.304/2017 is

still pending. These facts would show that the offender in the present

case is known and he is also being prosecuted. Therefore, this case is

squarely covered by the view taken by this Court in the case of Vijay s/o.

Kashinath Wankar vs. Additional Superintendent of Police/Competent

Authority, Gadchiroli and another, Criminal Writ Petition No.987/2017,

decided on 9th January, 2018. In this case, it has been held that the

jurisdiction to pass an order regarding confiscation of the seized vehicle

or otherwise, when the facts disclose that the offender is known and is

being prosecuted and has been prosecuted, lies with the Competent

Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class and not any authorized Officer.

It would then follow that the impugned order passed in the present case

by the Authorized Officer confiscating the seized vehicle is manifestly

illegal, it being without jurisdiction. This would make this petition as

maintainable before this Court.

5. In the result the following order is passed :

(a) The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

(b) The Learned Magistrate, who dealt with the prosecution

filed against the petitioner shall decide the question of confiscation of the

seized vehicle or otherwise by exercising his power under Section 98(2)

of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, in accordance with law.

              J-cwp883.17.odt                                                                                                  3/3 


                                (c)       Interim custody of the seized vehicle, until the final

order is passed by the Court below, is directed to be released to the

petitioner on the following conditions :

(i) The petitioner shall not sell or alienate or transfer

in any manner the seized vehicle and shall not alter its appearance or

structure in any manner till final disposal of the criminal appeal pending

against him.

(ii) The petitioner shall submit an undertaking

incorporating the above terms and also the term that he shall produce

the seized vehicle in its original form at the time of seizure before the

Criminal Court as and when required together with bond of

Rs.3,00,000/- for indemnifying the State in case there is a breach of any

of the conditions imposed hereunder by the petitioner.

6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

JUDGE

wadode