APARATIM MANISH DIXIT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the CrPC challenging the order dtd. 21/12/2021 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur in Criminal Revision No.144/2021 upholding the order passed by the CJM, Raipur dated 15. 09.2021 rejecting the application preferred for interim custody of the vehicle bearing registration No.CG-12/AN-9211 seized under Ss. 34 (1) (2) of the Excise Act, 1915 under Crime No.62/2021 registered at PS Excise Circle, Abhanpur, District Raipur

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of information received on 20/1/2021, the Excise Officials have recovered 450 bulk liters of foreign made liquor from the illegal possession of accused Avibhash Singh Thakur, brother of the Petitioner herein, who is the registered owner of the said vehicle, therefore, offence has been registered. The Petitioner has filed an application for interim custody of the said vehicle, however, the same was rejected by the CJM on 15/9/2021, which was affirmed by the revisional Court vide impugned order. Hence this petition.

(3.) Shri Thakur, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that both the Courts below have categorically recorded a finding that intimation for confiscation proceeding was received by the CJM, Raipur on 23. 03.2021 from the Collector, therefore, the CJM, on the date of passing of the earlier order dtd. 10/2/2021, was having jurisdiction to pass order regarding release of the vehicle by granting interim custody and even the said order was set aside vide order dtd. 8/3/2021 by the 6th Additional Sessions judge, Raipur in the earlier Revision filed by the Petitioner i.e. Criminal Revision No.24/2021 and the same was remitted back and thereafter, after calling the report from the Collector, the impugned order dtd. 15/9/2021 was passed by the CJM, Raipur and affirmed by the revisional Court. As on 10/2/2021, no intimation was received by the Court, therefore, it has jurisdiction to release the vehicle for interim custody as per the established principles laid down in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat {(2002) 10 SCC 283}. The bar of jurisdiction of the Court stipulated under Sec. 47-D of the Excise Act, 1915 is not applicable. Hence, learned Counsel prays to quash the impugned order and release the vehicle by granting interim custody to the Petitioner.