Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Prem Narayan Singh, J.
Manish @ Mahesh Soliya – Applicant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Misc. Criminal case No. 15378 of 2025
Decided On : 24-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel
For the Respondent:Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate

A court maintains jurisdiction to decide on the interim custody of seized property unless given proper notice of confiscation proceedings, as outlined in related statutes.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Cr.P.C. 1973 - Sections 451 and 457 - Interim custody of vehicle - Petitioner aggrieved by rejection of application for vehicle custody following its seizure in a liquor law violation - Courts ruled the petitioner without jurisdiction to claim custody due to pendency of confiscation proceedings. (Paras 1, 3, 8, 12, 16)

(B) Excise Act, 1915 - Section 47-D - Criminal Court’s jurisdiction - Clause specifies that jurisdiction is barred if intimation is received from the Collector regarding confiscation proceedings, negating petitioner's claim for vehicle custody. (Paras 8, 10, 15)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner held ownership of a vehicle seized while allegedly transporting liquor without a permit; attempted to retrieve the vehicle but faced legal obstacles due to pending confiscation procedures.

Findings of Court:
Prior intimation regarding confiscation was not received by the trial court when the custody application was adjudicated; thus, the court retains jurisdiction over custody matters.

Issues: Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant interim custody of the seized vehicle despite the confiscation proceedings pending against it.

Ratio Decidendi: The absence of requisite intimation of confiscation prior to the petitioner’s custody application enabled the court to review and approve the interim custody claim.

Result: Petition allowed, with conditions for release of vehicle placed.

ORDER :

Prem Narayan Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2025 passed by the learned third Additional Sessions Judge, District Dewas in Criminal Revision No.08/2025, arising out of the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Dewas in MJCR No. 1510/2024 arising out of Crime No. 315/2024 registered at Police Station Vijayganj Mandi, District Dewas (M.P.) whereby the Courts below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. 1973 ( Section 497 & 503 of BNSS , 2023) for interim custody of his vehicle bearing registration No. MP09 CR 4436.

2. As per the prosecution story, the petitioner is a registered owner of Car bearing registration No. MP09 CR 4436. The aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioner on 07.12.2024. It is alleged that the petitioner was carrying total 54 bulk litres of countrymade liqour without any valid permit and licence. During the pendency of the case, petitioner moved an application under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. on 07.12.2024 before the trial Court for interim custody of the said vehicle, which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 09.12.2024. Further, revision petition was filed before Third Additional Sessions Judge, District Dewas whereby impugned order dated 25.01.2025 was passed and application filed by the petitioner was rejected. Hence, present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case, an application was filed for supurdginama of the vehicle bearing registration No. MP09 CR 4436 on 07.12.2024 before the trial Court and trial Court has rejected the application vide order dated 09.12.2024 stating that there is an information regarding confiscation of vehicle whereas, intimation was received from the Collector on 20.12.2024. This fact has also been acknowledged by the Revisional Court in para 11 of the order dated 25.01.2025. Even then, application was rejected. It is further submitted that if the intimation of confiscation of the alleged vehicle is given to the Magistrate prior to the date of filing of application, then the vehicle should not be released. The trial Court has grossly erred in taking into account the provisions envisaged under Section 47 -D of MP Excise Act, 1915 while rejecting the application preferred under Section 451 read with Section 457 of Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jafar S/o Hanif decided on 22.02.2024 in Cr.R. No. 5303/2023 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Vahid Khan decided on 30.07.2024 in Cr.R. No. 6219/2019. It also submitted that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle and the present value of the vehicle is approximately Rs.10/- lacs and he is ready to furnish cash surety of Rs.2,00,000/- either in the form of FD or Bank Guarantee before the trial Court. Hence, alleged vehicle should be released.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by submitting that the learned Court below has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner, the vehicle was being used in the crime. Hence, he is not entitled for supurdginama. However, he has not disputed the approximate value of the vehicle and conceded the fact that the information was received on 20.12.2024, while the application of supurdginama was filed on 07.12.2024 and rejected on 09.12.2024 by learned Magistrate with regard to confiscation from the Collector.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. So far as the contention regarding section 47-D of Excise Act is concerned, it is crystal clear from the record that on the date of order i.e. 09.12.2024, no intimation for initiation of proceeding of confiscation from the Collector was received on 20.12.2024.

8. Before dwelli