RAHUL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dtd. 5/3/2022 passed by 1st Additional Session Judge, Khandwa in Criminal Revision No. 62/2021 arising out of order dtd. 28/9/2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa in RCT No. 165/2019 whereby, it dismissed the application of applicant registered owner of the vehicle filed under Sec. 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for getting interim custody of vehicle (motorcycle) bearing registration No MP-12-MQ-6357. Application of the applicant has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that as per the provision under Sec. 47-D of MP Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). The criminal Court has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle on interim custody because the District Magistrate has already initiated the proceeding against the applicant for confiscation of the vehicle and other seized property as per the provision under Sec. 47-D of the Act.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is a registered owner of the Motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-12-MQ-6357. No 69 (sixty nine) liters liquor was seized from him. Under the provision of Sec. 47-D of the Act, the criminal Court was not intimated by the District Magistrate for initiation of confiscation proceeding regarding the seized motorcycle. Therefore, the criminal court has jurisdiction to release the vehicle on Supurdginama. Learned counsel placing reliance on the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (2002)10 SCC 283 has submitted that seized vehicle should be given on interim Supurdginama to the applicant registered owner otherwise vehicle will get deteriorate by being kept unused and unattended in the premises of police station. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on order dtd. 12/1/2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 39683/2020 (Mukesh Vs. State of MP) passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court and has prayed that seized vehicle should be released on interim Supurdginama. He is ready to furnish the adequate security and Supurdginama for the same.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has supported the impugned orders. According to learned counsel for the State, as per the provision under Sec. 47-D of the Act, the Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to release the property seized in interim custody because the confiscation proceeding are already pending before the learned District Magistrate.