KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner-applicant has laid challenge to the order dated 15.3.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. 3 Mandi, District Mandi, passed in Criminal complaint No. 136/17, whereby the application for release of vehicle having been filed by the petitioner-applicant stood dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated facts as emerge from the pleadings as well as impugned order having been passed by the learned court below suggests that the applicant petitioner preferred an application for interim release of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-33-1022 (LML Vespa) Scooter along with its documents and key, which was impounded by the police, police post Mandi, District Mandi, in case FIR No. 52/2017 dated 6.3.2017 under Section 39 of the HP Excise Act, 2011 (In short "the Act"). It also emerge from the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court that investigation in the case is/was complete and vehicle is/was no more required by the police. By way of application, the petitioner prayed for interim release of the vehicle in question on spurdari and stated that he is ready to furnish surety bonds of reasonable amounts and also will abide by all the terms and conditions, which shall be imposed by the Court. As per the report of the police, vehicle in question was being used to carry seven bottles of English wine (Green Label) and the applicant-petitioner is the actual owner of the vehicle and he used the scooter for commission of offence under Section 39 of the HP Excise Act.

(3.) Learned court below on the basis of police report as well as arguments having been made by the learned counsel representing the respondent-State rejected the application filed for interim custody of the vehicle in question having been filed by the petitioner-accused, by concluding that the Magistrate has no power to order for interim custody/release of the impounded vehicle. Learned court further concluded that only authorized officer as prescribed under Section 62 of the Act is empowered to confiscate or set penalty of the said vehicle. The petitioner applicant aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid order having been passed by the learned trial Court has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, praying therein for interim custody of vehicle after setting aside the impugned order dated 15.3.2017, passed by the learned court below.