The interim custody of seized vehicles can be granted even during ongoing confiscation proceedings if proper justification is lacking for retention.

1. The present petition is against the order dated 7-9-2021 passed by the Collector, Mahasamund wherein an application for interim custody of vehicle preferred by the petitioner while the proceeding under the confiscation was continuing was dismissed.

2. Facts of this case are that on 29-4-2021 an information was received by the police of Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund that the alleged vehicle i.e. CG - 06 - GL - 8055 was being used for transportation of illicit liquor. On such information, raid was conducted and the vehicle when was intercepted, from the vehicle 43.800 bulk liters of foreign liquor was recovered. Having asked for the valid documents, no documents pertaining to such liquor was produced, therefore crime bearing No.33/2021 was registered under S.34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (for short 'the Act') and the liquor as also the vehicle was seized by the police. It was alleged by the State that the vehicle was being used for transporting illicit liquor as such proceeding under S.47 - A(3) of the Act was drawn for confiscation of vehicle. Further the Collector, who is authorised under S.47 - A (3) started confiscation proceeding for the vehicle. During such confiscation proceeding, an application was filed by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle till the confiscation proceedings are concluded. Said prayer for release of the vehicle for interim custody was dismissed by the order impugned. Therefore, this instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that confiscation proceeding though having been commenced it does not put any bar to release the vehicles on interim custody. He placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 and would submit that applying such principle till confiscation proceeding is concluded, the vehicle should have been handed over to the applicant. It is submitted that no necessary useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in the custody except the loss caused to it. It is further submitted that charge sheet having been filed no further enquiry is necessary in respect of criminal case and as such vehicle should have been released in favour of applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer.

5. Perused the order dated 7-9-2021. Perusal of the same would engrafts the reasoning that since vehicle was seized while it was being used for transportation of the illicit liquor as such it is not justified to hand over possession of the vehicle. In the result the application for interim custody was dismissed.

6. The confiscation proceeding under the Act is governed by S.47 - A(3) of the Act. S.47 - A(2) of the Act regulates the power and procedure to be adopted for confiscation which reads as under:
"47 - A(2) When the Collector, upon production before him of intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. or on receipt of a report about such seizure as the case may be, is satisfied that an offence covered by clause (a) orclause (b) of sub-section (1) of S.34 has been committed and where the quantity of liquor found at the time or in the course of detection of such offence exceeds five bulk liters he may, on the ground to be recorded in writing, order the confiscation of the intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. so seized. He may, during the pendency of theproceedings for such confiscation also pass an order of (sic or) interim nature for the custody, disposal etc. of the confiscated intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materi