TEJ PRASAD VASTRAKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has preferred this petition under Sec. (sic Article) 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 24/8/2021 passed by the Collector, Mahasamund wherein an application for interim custody of vehicle preferred by the Petitioner while the proceeding under the confiscation was continuing, was dismissed.

(2.) Facts of this case are that on 6/5/2021, an information was received by the Police of Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, that the alleged vehicle i.e. Ashok Leyland Truck bearing registration No. CG-06-GP-1067 was being used for transportation of illicit liquor. Acting on the tip-of, raid was conducted and the said vehicle was found transporting 16.200 liters of illicit liquor without any valid license or permit. Thereafter, FIR No. 220/2021 was registered under Sec. 120-B and Sec. 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, 1915 and the liquor as also the vehicle were seized by the police. It is mentioned in the order of the Collector that the vehicle has been received for confiscation proceeding under Sec. 47(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. During such confiscation proceeding, an application was filed by the Petitioner before the Collector, Mahasamund, for interim custody of the vehicle, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 24/8/2021. Hence, the instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner has purchased the said vehicle by taking loan and from its income he runs his house. He would also submit that due to ill health of his driver, the other driver namely Ramesh Kumar Bansod was given the vehicle to take Iron soil from Orisaa to Durg. The Petitioner had no knowledge that the driver of his vehicle would also bring illicit liquor. It is the driver who transported illicit liquor in his vehicle without his knowledge. He would further submit that no necessary useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in the custody except the loss caused to it. If the vehicle is not given to the Petitioner, its condition would be deteriorated, rendered useless and the possibility of theft of the parts of vehicle cannot be ruled out and the Petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle, therefore, he is entitled to get the possession of the vehicle. In support of submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this High Court in the matter of Ranjeet Kumar Gupta v. State of C.G. (order dtd. 17/4/2017 passed in WPCR No. 121/2016).