Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Iqbal Rain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2021
Author: Vishal Dhagat
1 MCRC-8221-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-8221-2021
(MOHD. IQBAL RAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 24-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Anirudh Hingwasia, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Neeraj Ashar, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Applicant has filed the present petition challenging order dated
25.1.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No.71/2020.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that revisional court has
committed an error of law in not considering his application on merits. It is
submitted that his application for release of vehicle on supurdnama has been
rejected on the ground that information regarding pendency of confiscation
proceedings has been received in the court of C.J.M on 9.9.2020. Learned
counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant had filed an
application on 8.9.2020 and application has been received by court of C.J.M
on 9.9.2020. Since there was no intimation on the date of filing of
application, therefore, court below committed an error in dismissing his
application for release of vehicle on supurdnama and not considering the
application on its merits.
Learned Govt. Advocate has opposed the petition and has supported
the order which has been passed by Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal
Revision No.71/2020.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
As per provisions of Section 47 of M.P. Excise Act, 1915, when a
case is being tried by Magistrate and any articles, utensils, implements,
apparatus or any other article by which offence has been committed is liable
to confiscation under section 46 of the Act, he shall order confiscation of
same provided that he has not received any intimation under Clause (a) of
sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act, from Executive Magistrate or
Signature Not
SAN
Verified Collector regarding pendency of proceedings under section 47-A of the Act.
Digitally signed by
MONSI M SIMON
Date: 2021.06.26
11:05:41 IST
2 MCRC-8221-2021
As per Section 47 of the Act of 1915, Magistrate looses its jurisdiction to
pass orders on articles, implements, apparatus, etc. which are seized in the
case as soon as he receives information from the office of Collector regarding
pendency of proceedings under section 47-A of the Act.
Since intimation has been received by C.J.M on 9.9.2020, therefore, he
has rightly refused to pass an order on the application filed by applicant for
release of his vehicle.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on judgment reported in
I.L.R 2018 MP 2782 (Prakash Vishwakarma vs. State of M.P. and
others) and M.P. 2003 (1) MPHT 439 (Suresh Dubey vs. State of
M.P.) wherein it has been mentioned that in said cases intimation has not
been received by Magistrate.
The present case is distinguishable from the above cases as intimation
has already been received, therefore, Magistrate cannot exercise its
jurisdiction to pass order for release of vehicle on supurdnama on 9.9.2020
and thereafter.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the applicant is
dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
mms
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
MONSI M SIMON
Date: 2021.06.26
11:05:41 IST
