The courts lack jurisdiction to grant interim custody of a seized vehicle if confiscation proceedings have been initiated by the Collector under the M. P. Excise Act.

ORDER :

Pranay Verma, J.

This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 5-1-2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 05/2023 by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Rajgarh affirming the order dated 16-12-2022 passed in Crime No. 445/2022 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, District Rajgarh, whereby his application under section 451 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE for grant of custody of the vehicle to him had been rejected.

2. The facts reveal that on the basis of a secret information on 21-8-2022, the Police party stopped a vehicle Maruti Suzuki Brezza bearing registration No. MP-04-CY-3827 and recovered total 80 liters of country made liquor from the same which was being transported illegally without a valid license. Accordingly, a case under section 34(2) of the M. P. Excise Act, 1915 has been registered against the petitioner.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application under section 451 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajgarh for custody of the aforesaid vehicle which was rejected vide order dated 16-12-2022 on the ground that intimation of initiation of confiscation proceedings by the Collector, Rajgarh (Biora), dated 1-9-2022 as regards the vehicle has been received, hence, as per provisions of section 47-D of the Excise Act, it has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle on interim custody. The said order has been maintained by the Revisional Court in revision preferred by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are illegal and contrary to law. Despite receipt of intimation from the Collector as regards initiation of the confiscation proceedings, the Courts below had ample power to direct the vehicle to be released on interim custody and there was no bar upon them for passing such an order. In not doing so, the Courts below have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. It is hence submitted that the impugned orders be set aside and the application preferred by the petitioner be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 15-5-2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 12900/2019, Rajesh Sisodiya vs. State of M. P., dated 24-2-2022 M.Cr.C. No. 62546/2021, Moin Khan vs. State of M. P., dated 29-9-2021 M.Cr.C. No. 1729/2021, Yogesh Sahu vs. State of M. P., dated 15-9-2021 M.Cr.C. No. 39397/2021, Vikas vs. State of M. P., dated 1-9-2021 M.Cr.C. No. 36888/2021, Pinkesh vs. State of M. P., dated 27-11-2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 11251/2019, Bapulal vs. State of M. P., dated 15-11-2022 M.Cr.C. No. 18496/2019, Nitesh vs. State of M. P., dated 11-5-2023 passed in W. P. No. 19528/2022, Suresh vs. State of M. P. and others, dated 6-9-2022 passed in W. P. No. 19535/2022, Dharam vs. State of M. P. and others and dated 13-7-2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1296/2015, Sheikh Kalim vs. State of M. P.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view of the mandatory provisions of the Excise Act, the Courts below had no jurisdiction whatsoever to release the vehicle on interim custody hence they have not committed any error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

7. The provisions of section 47-A and 47-D of the Excise Act being relevant are reproduced herein under :—

“47-A. Confiscation of seized