ORDER

1. The petitioner has preferred present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.7.2021 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora, District Ratlam in Criminal Revision No.17/2021, which was arose out of impugned order dated 30.6.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaora, District Ratlam in an unregistered Criminal Case No.0/2021, whereby an application preferred under sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for releasing the seized vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki Car bearing registration number MP-09-WH-3443 has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 28.4.2021 the police got a discrete information from the informant, on the basis of which police intercepted a car bearing registration number MP-09- WH-3443 and recovered 157.32 bulk litres liquor from the said vehicle. Accordingly, offence under section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act has been registered against the accused person.

3. The petitioner, who is the owner of the alleged vehicle has filed an application under sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Jaora for releasing the said vehicle on interim custody. After hearing both the parties, JMFC has dismissed the application by observing that seized vehicle is the subject matter of offence. Superintendent of Police has written a letter to the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Ratlam regarding initiation of confiscation proceedings, therefore, the seized vehicle cannot be released on interim custody. The petitioner has preferred a revision against the order of JMFC, Jaora before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora and the revisional Court has also dismissed the revision affirming the order passed by the JMFC vide order dated 27.7.2021, therefore, petitioner has preferred present petition.

4. The seized vehicle lying in an open area in the police station and there is no proper arrangement for its care, therefore, his vehicle will be damaged. The District Magistrate / Collector, Ratlam has not given any proper intimation to the concerned JMFC regarding initiation of confiscation proceeding of the aforesaid vehicle, therefore, there is no bar under section 47-D of the M.P. Excise Act and the both the Courts below have committed an error in rejection the application under section 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. He has also submitted petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle. Hence, he prays that both the impugned orders be quashed and the petitioner be granted interim custody of the seized vehicle.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order passed by both the Courts below by stating that the order passed by the JMFC as we as learned ASJ do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, therefore, present petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the facts of the case and rival contentions of the parties relying section 47-D of the Act, 1915 is looking upon, which provides for:-

“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 clause (a) or (b) of sub- section (1) of 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 an intimation under clause (a) of subsection (3) section 47-A about the initiation of the proceedings for confiscation of seized property.”

7. In Pratik Parik v. State of M.P. 2010(1) MPLJ (cri.) 205, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that application for release of vehicle rejected on the ground that liquor seized from the vehicle was more than 50 bulk liters and the jurisdiction to pass an order of