MUNESH KANJAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard at motion hearing stage itself. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 CrPC against the order dated 16.7.2013 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in Criminal Revision No. 42/2013 whereby the order dated 29.5.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class (Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board) Datia in Case No. 20 of 2013 rejecting application filed by the petitioner under Section 451/457 CrPC for releasing the vehicle on supurdginama has been affirmed.

(2.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is registered owner of Motorcycle bearing registration No. UP 93 AA 0134 seized in Crime No. 45 of 2013 by Police Station Civil Line Datia for offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act. The case is registered against accused Deepak and matter is pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Datia. Before that Court, the petitioner preferred one application for taking his vehicle on Supurdginama under Section 451/457 CrPC averring that he has no concern with the crime. His application filed under section 451/457 CrPC has been rejected on the ground that the proceedings for confiscation have been commenced before the Collector, Datia under Section 47 of the M.P. Excise Act and that order has been affirmed by the learned revisional Court. Both the orders of learned Courts below deserve to be set aside. It is further submitted that up till now petitioner has not received any show cause notice under the provisions of Excise Act from the office of Collector regarding confiscation proceedings and the criminal court has not been intimated by the District Magistrate/Collector regarding confiscation of seized motorcycle.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew this Court's attention to citation in M/s. Talwale Hanuman Ji Trading Company Vs. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C. No. 595 of 2010 on 7.7.2011, Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, 2003 1 S (Cr.) 42 and Madan Lal Vs. State NCT of Delhi, 2002 CrLJ 2605 and submits that petitioner is entitled for interim custody of vehicle till disposal of the confiscation proceedings if initiated against him.