Rajeev Kumar Jaiswal vs The State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 8786 MP

     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
                   (Division Bench)


                        W.A. No.769 of 2019

                        Rajeev Kumar Jaiswal
                              -Versus-
                       The State of M.P. & ors.

_______________________________________________________
CORAM :
      Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice.
      Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.

Shri Alok Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri B.D. Singh, Govt. Advocate for the respondents.

                           JUDGMENT

(Jabalpur, dtd.14.12.2021)

Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-

The present intra-court appeal has been filed under

Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand

Nyaypeeth to Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the

order dated 24-4-2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.

No.7904 of 2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant

has been dismissed.

2. The appellant preferred the writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 03-04-

2019, whereby the respondent No.3, Collector, Katni has imposed

certain conditions for release of the vehicle in question. The

Collector, while deciding the application of the appellant for release

of the vehicle, a Bolero jeep bearing registration No.MP-20-CH-

4073, in question, which was seized for the offence punishable

under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 (for short, "the

Excise Act"), has imposed the condition that it shall be released in

favour of the appellant on furnishing a Bank Guarantee/FD/NSC of

Rs.3,00,000/- together with an indemnity bond/surety of the like

amount and other conditions enumerated therein.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the

appellant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and was

not made an accused in the aforesaid case and, therefore, the

Collector could not impose such conditions for release of the

vehicle.

4. On going through the provision of sub-section (2) of

Section 47-A of the Excise Act, which empowers the Collector to

pass any order of interim nature for custody or disposal etc. of

confiscated articles, conveyance etc. during the pendency of the

proceedings, the Collector imposed the conditions within his

jurisdiction. Therefore, it cannot be held that imposition of the

conditions by the Collector is without jurisdiction.

5. The learned Single Judge has already considered the

provisions envisaged in Sections 47-A and 47-B of the Excise Act

and held that the same confer power on the Collector to impose

conditions, as may appear to him to be necessary in the

circumstances of the case.

6. We do not perceive any illegality in the order passed by

the Collector, Katni imposing conditions for release of the vehicle in

question and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge

in W.P. No.7904 of 2019 is impeccable and does not call for any

interference in the present intra-court appeal.

7. The writ appeal is dismissed without any order as to

costs.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

         (Ravi Malimath)                               (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
           Chief Justice                                       Judge


ac.

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.12.16 18:02:56 +05'30'