Pukhraj Chandrakar @ Poku ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2431 Chatt

                                        -1-

                                                                           NAFR


             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            WP227 No. 389 of 2021
      Pukhraj Chandrakar @ Poku Chandrakar (wrongly mentioned as
       Pokhraj in impugned order), S/o Ramesh Chandrakar, Aged About 33
       Years, R/o 91, Tendu Lotha Ward No.12, Bagbahara, Kalan (viran),
       Baghbahra, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund,
       Chhattisgarh
                                                                   ---- Petitioner
                                     Versus
     1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through, S.H.O. Police Station, Bagbahara,
        District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund,
        Chhattisgarh
     2. The District Magistrate (Collector) Mahasamund, District Mahasamund
        Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
                                                                 ---- Respondents

For Petitioner              - Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For State/respondents       - Smt. Hamida Siddiqi, Deputy Advocate General.

            Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
                                Order on Board

21-09-2021

1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been brought

being aggrieved by the order dated 03-08-2021 passed by the Collector

Mahasamund in Case No.159/2020 rejecting the application filed by the

petitioner for grant of interim custody of the vehicle seized.

2. It is submitted that the the vehicle bearing registration No. CG 06 GH

9211 has been seized in connection with commission of offence under Section

34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, 1915 (in short 'the Act, 1915). During pendency of

the trial, the Collector has initiated proceeding for confiscation of the seized

vehicle. The applicant then filed application for grant of interim custody of the

said vehicle which has been rejected by the impugned order.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner and the co-accused both have been

acquitted of charge in Criminal Case No.71/2021 by judgment dated 03-09-

2021 by the Court of JMFC Mahasamund. Relying on the order of this Court

passed in WP(227) No.82 of 2021 decided on 07-07-2021 it is prayed that the

petitioner was entitled for grant of interim custody of the vehicle. Therefore, the

petition may be allowed and relief be granted to the petitioner.

4. The State counsel opposes the petition and the submission. There is

objection regarding maintainability of this petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document.

6. The Collector while taking up the confiscation proceeding has discretion

with him to pass order of interim nature for custody of any seized Article, which

may appear to him to be necessary in the circumstances of the case. As the

order of rejection of application of interim custody is not appealable under

Section 47-B of the Act, 1915, therefore, it can be challenged in either manner

under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution of India. The petitioner has chosen to

file this petition under Article 227 Constitution of India.

As it appears that the Collector while exercising the powers under

Section 47-A Acts as a quasi judicial authority. As he has power to issue

notices to the persons from whom, the article has been seized or to any other

person, who is staking claim on the property seized, for the purpose of giving

them hearing before passing of the order of confiscation and the Collector has

to afford an opportunity to such persons for making their representation against

the proposed confiscation. Therefore, the Collector exercising such power is a

quasi judicial body and the orders passed are subject to supervision of this

Court, hence, the objections raised by the respondents side made hereinabove

are not sustainable.

I am of this view that the Collector Mahasamund had the power to

exercise discretion for granting interim custody of the seized vehicle during the

pendency of confiscation. The petitioner is the person who has staked his claim

over the seized vehicle, hence, for the reason that the Collector Mahasamund

has failed to exercise such discretion, which is wanted in such cases, this

petition is allowed and disposed off at the motion stage. The impugned order

dated 03-08-2021 is set aside. The Collector Mahasamund is directed to

release the vehicle under seizure in the offence mentioned hereinabove on

appropriate terms and condition that the petitioner shall produce the same as

and when directed by the Court, on interim custody until the completion of the

confiscation proceeding. This interim custody shall remain effective until the

final orders are passed by the Collector Mahasamund in the confiscation

proceeding. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

                                                      (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Aadil                                                              Judge