1. By this petition under section 482 of the CrPC, petitioner Sardar Singh is aggrieved by order dated 12.5.2015 passed by the A.S.J., Agar, District Shajapur in Criminal Revision No.60/15 whereby the revisional Court has upheld the order of the revisional Court passed by the JMFC, Agar.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant Sardar Singh is a registered owner of the vehicle Pickup Force Motors Cargo King bearing registration No.MP13/JA-2064. This vehicle was the subject matter of an offence under section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act and the vehicle was alleged to be carrying illicit liquor to the tune of 855 liters valued at Rs.1,90,000/- and being plied for illegal transport of the same, the applicant filed under sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC before the JMFC, Agar for handing over the vehicle on supurdagi. The trial Court dismissed the application on 7.4.2015 and the criminal revision filed consequently was also dismissed by the order dated 12.5.2015 and hence the present petition.

Although counsel candidly admitted that the application was in the nature of the second revision, however, he submitted the important question that was required to be decided in this petition was whether the Collector has jurisdiction to initiate the confiscation proceedings in view of the Full Bench decision in the matter of Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P. [2000(1) JLJ 304=2000(1) MPLJ 289], since it was affirmed by the apex Court in the matter of State of M.P. and others v. Madhukar [2008(1) JT 364]. Counsel submitted that the apex Court had held that until criminal case is concluded and accused are convicted, the Collector cannot initiate confiscation proceeding and the order was quashed. The applicant was directed to be handed over the vehicle. The basic fact considered by the Court in such cases was whether the seized vehicle would deteriorate due to long period at the police station and hence Magistrate can pass appropriate orders by taking bank guarantee as well as other security for return of the vehicle if required at any further time. The controversy was properly considered by the Bench at Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Dilip v. State of M.P. [2012(1) MPLJ 137], whereby the Court considered whether the provisions of the Excise Act under section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act were para materia with the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act and in the Forest Act, the Magistrate was competent to grant interim release of the vehicle; even in excise cases during the pendency of the trial of such cases as per merits of the each case. The view taken by the trial Court or the revisional Court that the Magistrate is not competent to grant interim release of the vehicle on supurdagi to its owner, was unsustainable and, therefore, set aside by issuing directions. Counsel has relied on judgment of Kailash v. State of M.P. [1992(II) MPWN 133], and Paramjeet Singh v. State of M.P. [1999(I) MPWN 100], where under the M.P. Excise Act under section 34A the interim custody was liable to be returned to the owner in spite of the liability of confiscation. In a recent judgment of this Court in the matter of Gayatri Sonkar v. The State of M.P. [Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7216/2015], also this Court had directed that no fruitful purpose will be served by retaining the vehicle during the pendency of the trial or during confiscation proceedings and it will diminish the value of the said vehicle and the petitioner is ready to produce the vehicle as and when called upon to do so. The Court relied on a judgment of the apex Court in the matter of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and other, reported in (1999)5 SCC 670, counsel prayed that the petition be allowed.

3. Counsel for the respondent/State, per contra has supported the orders of the Court below, stating that the trial Court as well as the revisional Court had categorically held that the vehicle was a subject-matter of confiscation proceedings and, therefore, the Judicia