VINOD KUMAR SAHU Vs. COMMISSIONER EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This CrMP has been taken-up for final hearing through video conferencing.

(2.) The petitioner herein calls in question the order dated 21.10.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sessions Judge, Mungeli, in Criminal Revision No.46/2018, whereby learned Sessions Judge affirmed the order dated 27.4.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Excise Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Appeal Case No.R.E.C.-44/2016-17 and order dated 12.9.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector, Mungeli by which the Collector has confiscated four wheeler Mahindra Bolero owned by the petitioner in exercise of power conferred under Section 47-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1915').

(3.) The petitioner is owner of Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No.CG-11 E-1768, which is said to have been seized from possession of Rajesh Singh on 28.5.2016 and found involved in commission of offence under Sections 34(1), 34(2) and 59(A) of the Act of 1915 in Crime No.216/2016. Mr.Rajesh Singh was charge-sheeted before jurisdictional criminal Court and ultimately, by order dated 28.7.2016 he was acquitted and thereafter the petitioner moved an application for interim custody of the said vehicle before the Collector, Mungeli on 1.5.2016. In the meanwhile, on 22.8.2016 on the basis of report of the Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, a revenue case for confiscation of the said vehicle was initiated by the Collector, Mungeli and ultimately by order dated 12.9.2016 the vehicle was directed to be confiscated, against which, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 47-B of the Act of 1915 before the Excise Commissioner, but that has also been dismissed by order dated 27.4.2017, against which, the petitioner preferred revision, revision was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Mungeli, against which, this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner stating inter-alia that order of confiscation as passed by the Collector and affirmed by the Excise Commissioner and revisional Court run contrary to the provisions contained in Section 47-A(3)(a) to (d) of the Act of 1915, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.