Keshaw Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5637 Chatt

                                            1


                                                                                  NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            Writ Petition (227) No. 655 of 2021
      Keshaw Ram Sahu, S/o Shri Bhushan Lal Sahu, aged about 46 yeas, R/o
       Village - Biroda, Tehsil - Dhamdha, Police Station Dhamdha, District - Durg
       (C.G.)
                                                                   ---- Petitioner
                                      Versus
   1. State of Chhattisgarh through The Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
   2. Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
                                                               ---- Respondents

  For Petitioner                   :       Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate
  For Respondents                  :       Mr. Lalit Jangde, Dy. Govt. Advocate

                   Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
                                 Order on Board

08.09.2022

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

seeking indulgence of this Court for granting relief to the petitioner by way of

interim custody of the vehicle seized in connection with the offence

committed under Section 34 (2) of C.G. Excise Act 2015.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the Honda

Motorcycle (Make - CB Shine) CG 07 AR 5685. The petitioner is not an

accused in the offence registered under C.G. Excise Act, 2015. Although, the

Collector, Durg has initiated the confiscation proceeding with respect to this

seized article but the petitioner is entitled for interim custody until the final

order is not passed in the confiscation proceeding. The application filed for

interim custody before Collector Durg has been dismissed vide order dated

12.08.2021 without assigning any reason by a non-speaking order,

therefore, this petition may be allowed and interim custody of the vehicle

may be granted to the petitioner.

3. Reliace has been placed on the judgment of coordinate bench of this Court

in W.P.(Cr,) No. 121 of 2016 between Ranjeet Kumar Gupta Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh & Anr. decided on 17.04.2017 and in W.P.(Cr.) No 365 of 2021

between Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. decided on

24.06.2021.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that although the

order passed by the Collector is not appealable, even then, the petition

under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not maintainable, therefore, the

application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is the only remedy available.

Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents present

on record.

6. The provision under Section 47 A (2) of the Act, 1915 is as follows:-

"47-A (2) When the Collector, upon production before him of intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. or on receipt of a report about such seizure as the case may be, is satisfied that an offence covered by clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 34 has been committed and where the quantity of liquor found at the time or in the course of detection of such offence exceeds five bulk liters he may, on the ground to be recorded in writing, order the confiscation of the intoxicant, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. so seized. He may, during the pendency of the proceedings for such confiscation also pass an order of interim nature for the custody, disposal etc. of the confiscated intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. as may appear to him to be necessary in the circumstances of the case."

7. 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 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 respondent's side made

hereinabove are not sustainable. I am of this view that the Collector Durg

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 Durg 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 12.08.2021 is set aside. The

Collector Durg is directed to release the vehicle seized in the offence

mentioned hereinabove on appropriate terms, 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 Durg in the

confiscation proceeding.

8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti