MAHESH KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, The instant petition is against the order dated 23.11.2017 whereby the order refusing to release vehicle on custody by an order dated 02. 11.2017 passed by the J.M.F.C. Balrampur was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge Ramanujganj, Sarguja (C.G.).

(2.) As per the prosecution case, a case was registered under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 and the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold bearing Registration No.C.G.15 CZ 1714 was seized. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed and the application when was filed for interim custody of the vehicle, the same was dismissed on the ground that the goods which are seized are liable to be confiscated according to Section 8 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order is absolutely against the law as Section 8 of the Public Gambling Act would come into play only after conviction, which cannot be implemented and press into motion when the custody of the vehicle is sought for during the trial and there was no certainty as the trial would complete. Till then if the vehicle is kept under the custody it will lose its motor-ability and subject to natural decay. Considering the same, the vehicle may be handed over to the petitioner.