PRATIK PARIK Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., assailing the order dated 28.5.09, passed in Criminal Revision No. 86/09 by Additional Sessions Judge, Bagli, district Dewas, affirming the order dated 17.4.09 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagli in Criminal Case No. 244/09, rejecting the application of the applicant under Section 451/457 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) ON perusal of the order impugned the trial Court has rejected the application of the applicant, filed under Section 451/457 of the Cr. PC, because it is filed by the Power of Attorney holder, however, in absence of the prayer of registered owner order to release the vehicle on supurdgi cannot be directed. The revisional Court though set aside the findings and held the vehicle may be released on supurdgi to the Power of Attorney holder, but because the liquor seized was more than 50 bulk liters and the jurisdiction to pass an order of disposal of such property by the competent criminal Court is barred under M.P. Excise Act; however, the application was rejected. It has also observed that an information for initiation of the confiscation proceedings of the seized vehicle was sent by the investigating Officer to the competent authority; however, release of the seized vehicle on supurdgi by the Court is not permissible.

(3.) AT the time of issuance of notice to show cause against admission learned Government Advocate has requested to seek instruction whether an intimation of initiation of the confiscation proceedings has been conveyed to Court by the competent authority or not? Learned Government Advocate has contended that on 6.7.09 notice has been issued by the Investigating Officer, to the registered owner of the vehicle to appear before the Collector, and to show cause why the seized vehicle may not be confiscated; however, on the strength of the said document it is submitted that an intimation has been given by the competent authority to the Court, therefore, the order passed by the revisional Court is liable to be upheld.