MANOJ MALVIYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARGUMENTS heard.

(2.) A perusal of certified copy of order dated 6-8-2001 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Criminal Revision No. 89/2001 filed by this petitioner, reveals that petitioner's application under Section 457 of Cr. PC stood disallowed and rejected by Shri U. K. Shukla, J. M. F. C, Chhindwara on 28-4-2001, by order passed in Criminal Case No. 53/2001. It is also found disclosed on perusal of aforesaid order that this petitioner wanted to obtain on supurdagi, Auto No, MP 28-T/0540 belonging to him, which was seized in Criminal Case No. 104/2001 of Police Station, Chandameta for offence punishable under Section 34-A of the M. P. Excise Act. While disposing of Criminal Revision No. 89/2001, in rejection, it is observed by first Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, that a total of 53,680 ml. liquor is seized from the aforesaid vehicle, and hence, as provided under Section 41, so also 47-A of the M. P. Excise Act, the Collector may order confiscation of the aforesaid vehicle.

(3.) IT is found repeatedly explained by this Court in Paramjeet Singh v. State of M. P,, reported in 1999 (1) MPWN 100 and Kailash v. State of M. P. , reported in 1999 (11) MPWN 133, that interim custody of motorvehicle cannot be refused on the ground of it being liable to be confiscated after offence is proved and hence, the same may be given to owner on interim custody, in spite of the liability of confiscation.