The Trial Court has jurisdiction to release seized property pending trial if statutory provisions allow it.

1. Heard.

2. Issue notice to the State.

3. Mr. R. K. Gupta accepts notice on behalf of the respondent / State.

4. Also heard on I.A. No.1, for urgent hearing and I.A. No.2, for hearing the case during summer vacation.

5. On due consideration, both are disposed of.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that looking to the entire facts as emerged in the order dated 11.12.2015 of the Trial Court and the order dated 05.05.2016 of the Revisional Court and the provisions of law, the matter may be heard finally at the motion stage itself for the prayer of the petitioner to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under S.482 of Criminal Procedure Code.

7. As prayed, heard the matter finally at the motion stage itself.

8. Facts in brief that the vehicle Truck No.CG - 13 - L - 0954 has been seized on 24.05.2015 in Crime No.287/2015 by the Bemetara Police for the offence under S.4, S.6, S.11 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 (for short 'the Act of 2004') and also under other Sections of relevant law. The petitioner had filed an application for the Supurdnama of the said truck, which was dismissed under the provisions of S.6 (3) of the Act of 2004 as no vehicle shall not be released by the order of the Court on bond or surety before the expiry of six months from the date of such seizure, thereafter again after the expiry of six months from the date of seizure, the petitioner had filed a repeat application for the Supurdnama on said vehicle. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.12.2015 held that as per communication received from Bemetara police that the prayer for the confiscation by the Collector is made through Superintendent of Police. Hence as the procedure for confiscation is going on, it would not be correct to release the vehicle on Supurdnama hence dismissed the said application. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred a Criminal Revision No.21/2016 before the Additional Sessions Judge Bemetara (C.G.). Learned Revisional Court vide order dated 05.05.2016 held that as per provisions of S.6(3) of the Act of 2004, the vehicle shall liable for confiscation at the end of the trial, whereby there is no any provision to apply the discretionary power for release of the said vehicle, hence the order for rejection of prayer to release the said vehicle on Supurdnama is appropriate thereby affirmed the order passed by the Court below on a different grounds. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred instant Cr.M.P. praying that provisions contained in S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be invoked and this Court may pass suitable order for Supurdnama of the above vehicle.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the trial Court and also of the Revisional Court is against the provisions of law. The Collector has no role in the confiscation as per provisions. It would be the trial Court alone, who has to decide the confiscation. Further prayed that before the expiry of six months, the vehicle cannot be released on Supurdnama thereby deemed that under the provisions of Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure , S.451 / 457 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, the Criminal Court has jurisdiction to order for custody and disposal of property pending trial. Under the doctrine of disposal of said property on an ad - interim basis, looking to the requirements and other facts hence as the Collector has no say in the confiscation proceedings, appreciation of the Revisional Court is not correct that there is no any jurisdiction to release the said vehicle. On Supurdnama with the Trial Court, both the Courts below committed illega