ORDER

Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.06.2023, passed in Case No.RCT 838/2022 arising out of Crime No.636/2022, under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, whereby, the petitioner’s application filed under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected, on the ground that since the order of confiscation has already been passed by the District Magistrate, Barwani, hence, the Court has no jurisdiction to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.

3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner happens to be the owner of a Swift Desire car bearing registration No.MP-09-

TA-7137, which was seized by the Police on 31.08.2022, along with 90 bulk litres of plain country made liquor and thus, a case has been registered against him and the car has been confiscated by the Excise Collector vide his order dated 21.03.2023, under Section 46 of the M.P. Excise Act. 4] Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Suresh Vs. State of M.P. and Others, passed in W.P.No.19528/2022 dated 11.05.2023 wherein, this Court has also relied upon another decision rendered by this Court in the case of Sheikh Kaleem Vs. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C.No.1296/2015 dated 13.07.2015; Premdas v/s. State of M.P., reported as 2013(1) MPJR SN 10 and Santosh S/o Tulsiram Jaiswal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, passed in W.P.No.1037/2016 dated 13.05.2016, and it is held that the occasion to confiscate the vehicle arise only after a person is convicted in the offence, and only then it would be deemed that he has committed the offence. And since the case is pending before the Trial Court, there was no reason for the respondent to presume that the offence has been committed. Thus, on such grounds, a prayer has been made to allow the petition.

5] Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer.

6] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7] In view of the aforesaid discussion, since it is an admitted fact that the criminal case is pending against the petitioner in the Trial Court, the impugned order directing confiscation and forfeiture of the vehicle is held to be unsustainable and is hereby set aside.

8] In view of the aforesaid, present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the Collector, Barwani is hereby set aside and the respondent is directed to release the vehicle bearing registration No.MP-09-TA-7137 to the petitioner forthwith on such terms and conditions, as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

9] With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. (SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Bahar