Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Kumar Dwivedi vs The State Of M.P. on 16 July, 2021
Author: Nandita Dubey
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.11316/2021
(Krishna Kumar Dwivedi Vs. The State of M.P.)
Jabalpur, Dated :16.07.2021
HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
Shri Arunodaya Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms. Sharda Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
The petitioner has filed the present petition being
aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by
Collector, Sidhi, whereby the vehicle of the petitioner has
been confiscated.
The petitioner is the owner of vehicle-Mahindra Bolero
bearing registration No. M.P. 09 CG 2482. An FIR has been
registered on 01.06.2020 against the petitioner for offence
under Section 34 (2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915, alleging that
the said vehicle was seized while it was carrying 25 boxes of
plain country made liquor.
On the basis of the aforesaid seizure, the Collector,
Sidhi has initiated confiscation proceedings and confiscated
the vehicle of the petitioner. The application filed by the
petitioner for release of the vehicle was rejected on the
ground that illegal liquor has been seized from the vehicle
and driver of the vehicle fled away from the spot and on the
basis of registration, it was found that the same was
registered in the name of one Jagannath Singh, resident of
Indore, neither the owner of the vehicle was produced nor
any reply on behalf of petitioner has been filed. Against the
said order of rejection dated 08.01.2021, the petitioner has
filed the present petition.
Similar controversy came up before this Court in W.P.
No. 3770/2017 decided on 25.09.2017, the said writ petition
has been allowed by placing reliance over the judgment
passed by Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC
282. Operative part is reproduced below:-
"Upon consideration of rival contentions and the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sunderbhai (supra), in the opinion of this Court, the
approach of District Magistrate while dealing with the
application for interim custody of the vehicle pending
confiscation proceedings is not in conformity with the
provisions as contained under Section 47-A of the Act,
in as much as Section 47- A(2) and 47- A(3) of the Act
prescribe for procedure to be followed in the matter
of confiscation proceedings related to seized
intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials,
conveyance etc. ensuring safeguards in conformity
with principles of natural justice. The provision for
release of conveyance etc., so seized under the Act as
an interim measure is primarily discretionary in
nature but to be exercised judiciously. Nevertheless,
the said power of release of vehicle as an interim
measure is though co-extensive but not coterminus
with the order of confiscation. The insistence of
completion of procedure contemplated under sub-
Section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act is in excess of
ingredients required to be considered for interim
custody of the seized conveyance. The observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai
(supra) in the context of Section 451 and 457 of
Cr.P.C. throws sufficient light upon the nature of the
jurisdiction of the competent authority in the matter
of grant of interim custody under Section 47-A(2) of
the Act. In the obtaining facts and circumstances of
the case since the vehicle in question has been seized
as far back as on 14.9.2016 and the same is in custody
of local Police Station at Shajapur, there is every
possibility of its diminishing value by efflux of time
and deteriorating condition due to exposure to open
atmosphere. Consequently, in the opinion of this
Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed
and the impugned order is hereby set aside with a
direction to the respondent for release of vehicle
No.MP-09-JW-4511 on furnishing sufficient
security/bond/guarantee with conditions conducive
and relevant for the purpose of confiscation
proceedings."
In the present case, the petitioner has filed the
registration certificate of the vehicle, which shows that he
is the registered owner of the vehicle.
Under the circumstances and in view of the aforesaid
decision, the impugned order dated 08.01.2021 is hereby
set aside with a direction to the respondent to release the
vehicle No. M.P. 09 CG 2482 on furnishing sufficient
security/bond/guarantee with conditions conducive and
relevant for the purpose of confiscation proceedings and
the petitioner is directed not to transfer the vehicle and
keep it in a good condition and produce before the
authority as and when required. In addition, the Collector
may impose any other condition as per law.
The petition is accordingly allowed.
(Nandita Dubey)
Judge
SMT. GEETHA NAIR
gn
2021.07.20 17:21:36 +05'30'
