ORDER

1. This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 9.12.2020 passed by 7th Additional Session Judge, Damoh in Criminal Revision No. 56/2020 arising out of order dated 20.10.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damoh in MJCR No. 2556/2020 whereby, it dismissed the application of applicant registered owner of the vehicle filed under section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for getting interim custody of vehicle (Maruti Alto) bearing registration No MP-20-CA-8630. Application of the applicant has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that as per the provision under section 47-D of MP Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). The criminal Court has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle on interim custody because the District Magistrate has already initiated the proceeding against the applicant for confiscation of the vehicle and other seized property as per the provision under section 47-D of the Act.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is a registered owner of the vehicle Maruti Alto bearing registration No. MP-20-CA-8630. No liquor was seized from him. Under the provision of section 47-D of the Act, the criminal Court was not intimated by the District Magistrate for initiation of confiscation proceeding regarding the seized Alto Car. Therefore, the criminal Court has jurisdiction to release the vehicle on Supurdginama. Learned counsel placing reliance on the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002)10 SCC 283] has submitted that seized vehicle should be given on interim Supurdginama to the applicant registered owner otherwise vehicle will get deteriorate by being kept unused and unattended in the premises of police station. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on order dated 13.8.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 30714/2019 (Hari Prakash & another v. State of MP) and order dated 20.8.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 23043/2020 (Yogndra Singh v. State of M.P.) passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court and has prayed that seized vehicle should be released on interim Supurdginama. He is ready to furnish the adequate security and Supurdginama for the same.

3. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has supported the impugned orders. According to learned counsel for the State, as per the provision under section 47-D of the Act, the Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to release the property seized in interim custody because the confiscation proceeding are already pending before the learned District Magistrate.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and impugned orders.

5. In the case in hand, liquor more than 50 bulk liters was seized from the Alto Car bearing registration No. MP-20-CA-8630. Application under section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned JMFC by the applicant. Applicant is registered owner of the vehicle but same was dismissed on 20.10.2020 by the JMFC as intimation dated 6.10.2020 by Collector/District Magistrate Damoh about the initiation of confiscation proceeding was received in his Court on 10.10.2020.

6. It is undisputed that the applicant is registered owner of the vehicle in question and application filed by him to take the vehicle in temporary custody was dismissed on 20.10.2020 as intimation dated 6.10.2020 by Collector/District Magistrate Damoh was received in his Court on 10.10.2020. Section 47-D of the Act is as under :--

“ 47 D. Bar of jurisdiction of the Court under certain circumstances.- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act, or any other law for the time being in force, the Court having jurisdiction to try offences covered by the clauses (a) or (b) of sub section (1) of the section 34 on account of which such seizure has been made, shall not make any order about the disposal, custody etc. of the intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. seized after it has received from the Collector