(1) The central legal issue that falls for consideration in this petition is whether the Court having jurisdiction to try offences covered by clause (a) or (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 34 will have the jurisdiction to grant custody of the vehicle seized, after it has received information from the Collector under clause (a) of sub-Section (3) of Section 47A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1915’) about the initiation of the proceedings for confiscation of seized vehicle ?

(2) The petitioner is registered owner of four wheeler (Bolero) bearing registration No. CG-04-HB-2513. The said vehicle has been seized by the Police Station – Saraipali in connection with Crime No. 281/14 for commission of offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Act of 1915 as the said vehicle was found involved in transporting 126 liters of country made liquor.

(3) The Prosecuting Agency, after seizure of the vehicle, sent intimation to the Collector, Mahasamund; and the Collector, Mahasamund registered Revenue Case No. 206-B/121 year 2013-14 under Section 47-A of the Act, 1915; and Collector in exercise of power conferred under clause (a) of sub-Section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act of 1915 sent an intimation about the initiation of the proceedings for confiscation of the seized vehicle to the trial Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offences on 28th August, 2014.

(4) The petitioner made an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth ‘the Code’) stating inter alia that he, being the registered owner of the vehicle, is entitled for custody of the vehicle in question as it is lying unused in the Police Station and it is likely to be damaged if the custody is not granted to the petitioner herein, which is opposed by the prosecution on the ground that petitioner is not entitled for custody in view of express bar contained in Section 47-D of the Act of 1915 as it has already been intimated by the Collector to the trial Magistrate about the initiation of the confiscation proceedings.

(5) Learned trial Magistrate, by its order dated 18.09.2014, rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein for custody of the vehicle holding that the confiscation proceedings has already been initiated by the Collector under Section 47-A of the Act, 1915 and intimation has been sent to trial Court having jurisdiction to try the offences, therefore, interim custody of the said vehicle cannot be granted to the petitioner.

(6) Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the order of learned Magistrate, petitioner preferred revision before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund.

(7) The revisional Court, by its impugned order dated 12.11.2014, concurred with the findings recorded by trial Magistrate finding inter alia that in exercise of power conferred under Section 47-A (3) (a) of the Act of 1915, Collector has already sent an intimation on 28.08.2014 to the trial Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offences on account of which seizure has been made; and in view of specific bar contained in Section 47-D of the Act of 1915, no such custody can be granted to the petitioner herein and dismissed the revision petition.

(8) The petitioner calls in question the above-stated impugned order whereby his application for custody of the vehicle has been rejected by the trial Court, and the same is affirmed by the Revisional Court in view of the provisions contained in Section 47-D of the Act of 1915.

(9) Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel would submit that mere initiation of the proceedings for confiscation of vehicle in question would not bar the jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate to direct the custody of the seized vehicle for offence under Section 34(2) of the Act of 1915 and, therefore, impugned order be set aside and the custody of the vehicle in question be granted to the petitioner as he is ready and willing to furnish supurdnama bond and he will ab