HARI PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 08.06.2019 passed by Second Additional Session Judge, Seoni in Criminal Revision No. 13/2019, whereby the revisional Court has upheld the order of JMFC, Lakhnadon dated 23.04.2019 dismissing the application for Supurdginama filed u/s 457 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) According to the case of the prosecution, police intercepted vehicle bearing registration No. UP-94-BF-2854 and seized 70 bulk litres of illicit liquor from the vehicle, whereon, offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act has been registered. After seizure of the vehicle, petitioners filed an application u/s 457 of Cr.P.C for releasing the vehicle but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 23.04.2019 and the subsequent revision petition has also been dismissed vide order dated 08.06.2019 for releasing the vehicle on Supurdginama.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence has been committed by the petitioner for the offence u/s 34 (2) of Excise Act and he has been accused only on the basis that he is the registered owner of the vehicle in which illicit liquor has been seized. It is further submitted that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that at the time of passing of order by the JMFC, no proceeding of confiscation was initiated and that no such notice was served on the petitioners. It is also submitted that a notice has been served on Petitioner No.2 on 01.05.2019 which is subsequent to passing of order by the learned JMFC. The owner of the vehicle cannot be deprived of using his vehicle without being proved that the same was involved in the offence, as alleged. It is further submitted that the trial will take long time to conclude and if the vehicle is allowed to be kept in open, the same will be subject to decay. On these grounds, prayer is made to release the vehicle on Supurdginama.