Raju Banjara vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6841 MP

                                                                     1                           MCRC-25199-2021
                                          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                    MCRC-25199-2021
                                               (RAJU BANJARA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                                3
                                Indore, Dated : 26-10-2021
                                         Shri Sachin Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner .
                                         Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned Panel lawyer for the respondent-
                                State.
                                         Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being
                                aggrieved by the order dated 07/04/2021 passed by the Additional Sessions

                                Judge Jawad, District-Neemuch in CRR No.2/2021 confirming the order
                                dated 02/02/2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jawad,
                                District-Neemuch in relation to Crime No.3/21 registered at Police Station
                                Singoli, District Neemuch.
                                         2. Facts

of the case in brief are that on the basis of secret information received from the informant, Police intercepted a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.RJ06-UA-7079, which is coming from Rajasthan to M.P., near Meladevi temple and search was conducted. During search, 129.600 bulk liters of illicit liquor were recovered from the accused persons. Police seized

the said liquor as well as vehicle and accordingly case has been registered under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.

3. Petitioner/ owner of the vehicle filed an application under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jawad to release the seized vehicle on interim custody (supurdagi).

4. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, JMFC, Jawad dismissed the application vide order dated 02/02/2021 by observing that intimation of confiscation proceedings has been received vide letter No.102/ RTAC/21 dated 21/01/2021 sent by the Additional Collector Neemuch, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 47(D) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915, jurisdiction of JMFC to pass an order for interim custody of the vehicle Signature Not Verified SAN is barred. The same prayer was also rejected by the revisional Court vide

Digitally signed by VARSHA CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.10.28 18:42:01 IST 2 MCRC-25199-2021 order dated 07/04/2021. Hence, this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner is a registered owner of aforementioned vehicle and his vehicle has been falsely implicated in this case. The Apex Court in the case of Sundar Bhai Ambala Vs. State of Gujarat (2002) AIR SCW 5301 has held that during

pendency of trial, the vehicle should be handed over to the registered owner in order to avoid it becoming totally dis-functional. Therefore, both the Courts below have committed error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner only on the basis that proceedings of confiscation of the said vehicle under Section 47(A)(1) of M.P. Excise Act are going on. Hence, he prays that the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below be set aside and possession of the said vehicle bearing registration No.RJ06-UA-7079 be handed over to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Paramjeet Singh Vs. State of M.P. 1999 (1) MPWN 100 and judgment passed by this Court in W.P. No.3387/2015 (Roopsingh Vs. State of M.P.) dated 03/11/2015.

7. Learned Panel lawyer for the respondent-State supported the orders passed by the Courts below and opposes the application contending that the order passed by Courts below do not suffer from any illegality and therefore, the same are not liable to be interfered.

08. I have considered the facts of the case and rival contentions of the parties relying Section 47-D of the Act, 1915 is looking upon, which provides for:-

"47-D. Bar of jurisdiction of the Court under certain circumstances:- €œNotwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act, or any other law for the time being in force, the Court having jurisdiction to try offences covered by clause (a) or (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 34 on account of which such seizure has been made, shall not make any order about Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VARSHA CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.10.28 18:42:01 IST 3 MCRC-25199-2021 the disposal, custody etc. of the intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. seized after it has received from the Collector an intimation under clause (a) of sub-section (3) Section 47-A about the initiation of the proceedings for confiscation of seized property."

9. In Pratik Parik vs. State of M.P. 2010(1) MPLJ (cri.) 205, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that application for release of vehicle rejected on the ground that liquor seized from the vehicle was more than 50 bulk liters and the jurisdiction to pass an order of disposal of such property was barred under M. P. Excise Act. Bar under Section 47-D of the Act was not attracted unless intimation was received by the Court from the Collector.

10. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, a

coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.05.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No.1285/2017 has held as under:-

"Having perusal of the impugned orders, it is found that on behalf of the Collector no intimation has been given to the trial Court/ Magistrate under Section 47(A)(3)(a) of M.P. Excise Act and the provision relating to bar of jurisdiction to release the vehicle under section 47-D of M.P. Excise Act is not attracted and the Magistrate is competent to release the vehicle. There is no other ground to keep the vehicle idle till disposal of the case. So far as the proceeding of confiscation is concerned, if it is going on, the order for release of vehicle may be given effect subject to order of the confiscation so that the order of confiscation may also be implicated." (Emphasis supplied)

11. After perusal of the order passed by the JMFC, Jawad it reveals that while passing the impugned order, the concerned Magistrate was having information regarding institution of confiscation proceedings of the seized vehicle under the provisions of M.P. Excise Act, which was sent by the Additional Collector, District-Neemuch vide letter No.102/RTAC/21 dated 22/01/21, therefore, learned trial Court as well as revisional Court have correctly dismissed the prayer of petitioner for releasing the aforesaid vehicle Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VARSHA CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.10.28 18:42:01 IST 4 MCRC-25199-2021 on interim custody on the ground of lack of jurisdiction under the provisions of M.P. Excise Act, 1915. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any incorrectness, impropriety, illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below.

12. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts with present case therefore, the same are not applicable in the present case.

13. It is not worthy to mention that legislature has provided an alternative relief under sub-section 2 of Section 47(A) of M.P. Excise Act. Petitioner may easily and legally address to the Collector before whom proceedings of confiscation are pending.

14. Resultantly, in view of the aforesaid analysis, no ground for interference in the impugned orders of the Courts below is made out. Accordingly, present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE

vc

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VARSHA CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.10.28 18:42:01 IST