Vehicle seized for illicit liquor transport released on interim custody to non-accused owner where used by third-party without owner's knowledge/connivance, per fourth Supreme Court scenario, on bond/conditions under CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

1. Issue notice to the Respondents. The learned APP waives service of notice for Respondents/State. By consent of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner has approached this court for quashment of the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad, thereby rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 8.10.2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Kallam, in Criminal M.A. No. 116 of 2025.

3. By the aforesaid two orders, the application filed by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle seized in Crime No. 292 of 2025, registered with Excise Police Station, Dist. Dharashiv under Section 65 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, wherein, illicit liquor amounting to Rs. 25,000/- was seized by the Excise Department came to be rejected.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not even an accused in the aforesaid crime. The aforesaid crime is registered against one Ramvilas Yadav, the friend of the petitioner, who had requested the petitioner to use his vehicle, as he was having some private work of taking his parents to a distant place. The petitioner had, therefore, handed over the said vehicle without knowing that the said accused Ramvilas Yadav would use the vehicle to carry the illicit liquor. After realizing that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized in the aforesaid Crime No. 292 of 2025 registered on 26.8.2025, by Excise Department, the petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kallam, vide order dated 8.10.2025, had rejected the said application, only on the ground that the said vehicle was used for transport of illicit liquor. The petitioner has, therefore, filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which was registered as Criminal Revision No., 6 of 2025. However, the learned Revisional Court, vide its judgment dated 13.11.2025 was pleased to reject the said revision, filed by the petitioner herein, on the ground that as per the Provision to Section 99 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, the petitioner shall be able to show that he had exercised due care in preventing the commission of crime and only if the such condition is satisfied that the owner can be handed over the possession of the vehicle.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. The vehicle is owned by him. There are documents to show that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle hypothecated to Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company. The petitioner is facing difficulty in his day to day activities because of the vehicle being seized by the Department in the crime, as mentioned hereinabove.

6. The learned APP on the other hand submits that the impugned orders are just and proper and liable to be maintained. The vehicle was found transporting illicit liquor and there is every likelihood that the vehicle if released, may again be used for transporting illicit liquor.

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for State. The impugned order dated 08.10.2025 shows that the learned J.M.F.C. Kallam has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No.156/1993 in