1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of Foreign Liquor and having a bottling plant at village Sejwaya, District Dhar, named and styled as M/s. Great Galeon Limited being aggrieved of the orders dated 9.5.2008, 2.9.2008 and 30.8.2008 has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the quashment of these orders.

2. By order dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure P-7) and 2.9.2008 the respondents No.2 and 3 declined the request of the petitioner to sell 572 boxes of foreign liquor seized by Police Station Rahatgarh and given on Supradnama to the petitioner who deposited the same in the Government Foreign Liquor Warehouse, Sagar, as per order dated 5.5.2008, passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sagar, in Criminal Revision No.28/2008. Whereas; by order dated 30.8.2008, Collector, Sagar in an Excise Case No.373-B/121/07-8 directed the confiscation and sale of seized 562 boxes of foreign liquor and deposit of sale proceeds in Government Treasury.

3. The relevant facts briefly are that, the petitioner was accorded a transport permit for transportation of 4932.0 bulk liter/3690 proof liters of Indian made foreign liquor from Sejwaya to foreign liquor Warehouse, Sagar on the conditions that, the consignment shall not be broken in transit and shall be routed to the destination via Ghata Billod-Prethampur-Dhar-Indore-Bhopal-Raisen to Sagar. The said consignment was transported through vehicle No. MP.09/KA-5025. The conditions stipulated in the transport permit was violated, i.e., the route which the vehicle was supposed to follow was deviated from, and the vehicle with the consignment was seized on 27.4.2008 at Police Station, Rahatgarh. An offence under section 34(1)(a), 34(2) of the Excise Act, 1915 under Crime No.183/2008 was registered and the driver of the vehicle arrested. An application for Supradanama of seized material, i.e., 562 boxes of crime and the vehicle filed on behalf of the petitioner before judicial Magistrate Class I, Sagar, who rejected by order dated 30.4.2008; however, in a criminal revision preferred by the petitioner following order was passed :

^^16- iqujh{k.kdrkZx.k dh vksj ls ÁLrqr dh xbzZ nksuksa iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk,¡ Lohdkj djrs gq, vkns"k fn;k tkrk gS fd %&

1/411/2 iqujh{k.kdrkZ ;kfpdk Øekad 98@08 dk vkonsd iqujh{k.kdrkZ mls lqiqnZxh ij nh xbZ vaxzsth "kjkc dks Fkkus ls lqiqnZukek ij ÁkIRk gksus ds ckn 24 ?kaVs ds vanj "kkldh; os;jgkml lkxj esa tek djus dh "krZ ij fo}ku U;kf;d eftLVªsV ÁFke Js.kh lkxj 1/4dq- dfork ekFkqj1/2 dh larqf'V ;ksX; 5]00]000@& ik¡p yk[k #i;s dh tekur vkSj bruh gh jkf"k dh lqiqnZukek is"k djus ij mls lqiqnZxh ij nh tkosA lqiqnZxh ij ÁkIr gksus ds 24 ?kaVs ds vanj os;jgkml lkxj esa vaxzsth "kjkc tek djds jlhn U;k;ky; ds le{k ÁLrqr djsxk] pwd djus dh n"kk esa lqiqnZukek vkns"k fu'ÁHkkoh ekuk tkosxkA ikorh jlhn lqiqnZdkj fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa o bl U;k;ky; esa is"k djsxk vkSj Ádj.k ds vafre fujkdj.k ds le; ;fn tIr"kqnk "kjkc ds ckjs esa U;k;ky; }kjk dksbZ gdnkj O;fDr ds i{k esa vkns"k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS rks "kjkc ds ewY; ds cjkcj ik¡p yk[k dh lhek rd jkf"k U;k;ky; ds }kjk gdnkj O;fDr dks vnk djsaxsA mDr "krks± ds v/khu lqiqnZukek dk ,oa tekur is"k dh tkos rks tIr"kqnk "kjkc iqujh{k.kdrkZ th- ds- f=ikBh }kjk eq[r;kj [kkl xzsV fxfy;u daiuh Hkstokdj ftyk /kkj dks varfje lqiqnZxh eas nh tkosA**

4. The aforesaid order was passed on the anvil of the following findings, recorded in paragraph 12 :

^^12- dsl Mk;jh esa Vªd ds dkxtkr jftLVj Áek.ki= ds vk/kkj ij vkosnd lkSnku flag vfgjokj tIr"kqnk Vªd dk jft- LFkk;h gs "kjkc Vªd esa Hkjdj ykbZ tk jgh Fkh og mlds Lda/k es fxysfou fy- daiuh ls tokj ftyk /kkj esa QkeZ ,Q ,Q 14 VªkaliksVZ ijfeV Øekad 14-4-2008 dks tkjh fd;k x;k gS ftlds vuqlkj fnukad 28-4-2008 rd 4%15 cts lqcg rd mDRk "kjkc lkxj os;j gkml ds fy, ys tkus ckor ijfeV esa vkonsd th- ds- f=ikBh dh xzsfy;u daiuh dk vf/kd`r fd;k x;k gS xzsV xsys;u daiuh dh vksj ls buokbl tkjh dj "kkldh; Qkjsu fydj ds os;j gkml lkxj esa mDr "kjkc Hksts tkus ds fy, buokbl tkjh