KULDEEP UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. criminal case has been instituted on an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioner/accused Kuldeep Upadhyay for taking motorcycle no. MP35 ME 2668 in his interim custody. It is directed against the order dated 7.9.2017 passed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laundi, district Chhattarpur in Criminal Revision No. 158/2017, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge had affirmed the order dated 28.7.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Laundi, district Chhattarpur in Crime No. 28/2017, dismissing the application for taking aforesaid motorcycle in interim custody.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this misc. criminal case may be summarized as hereunder: Police Station Chhatarpur, district Chhatarpur registered a case under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act against petitioner Kuldeep Upadhyay and co-accused Ramraja Singh. In aforesaid crime, motorcycle No. MP35 ME 2668 which was allegedly being used in commission of the crime, was seized. The petitioner/accused Kuldeep moved an application for taking aforesaid vehicle in interim custody on the ground that he is being put to inconvenience because of seizure of aforesaid vehicle. This application was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Laundi by order dated 28.7.2017, on the sole ground that the petitioner/accused Kuldeep had not filed registration certificate of the vehicle in order to demonstrate that he is registered owner of the vehicle. The petitioner filed a criminal revision No. 158/2017 against order dated 28.7.2017 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laundi, district Chhatarpur. Aforesaid criminal revision was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge solely on the ground that a letter has been written in the case for initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle; therefore, learned Magistrate had committed no error of law and fact in dismissing the application for interim custody of the vehicle.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration certificate of the vehicle was seized by the police along with vehicle and is available in the case diary. It has further been submitted that though, the police had written to the Collector for initiation of confiscation proceedings of the motorcycle, no intimation had been received from Collector to learned Judicial Magistrate First Class regarding initiation of confiscation proceedings; therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 47-D of the Excise Act, the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to release the vehicle in interim custody, was not ousted; as such, both the Courts below have grievously erred in dismissing the application for release of vehicle in interim custody.