1

CRMP No.418 of 2022

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRMP No. 418 of 2022

Hemant Goyal, S/o. Shri Basant Goyal, Aged About 32 Years,

R/o. Gaya Nagar Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate /

Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

2. District Excise Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund,

Chhattisgarh.

3. Station House Officer, Police Station Singhoda, District

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

4. Ravi Kumar, S/o. Govind Ram Yadav, Aged About 22 Years,

R/o. Ward No. 10, Sirsa, Bazar Chowk Jevra, Sirsa, Pulgaon,

District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

5. Sonu, S/o. Derha Ram Sahu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Ward

No. 35, Ganjpara, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

6. Bhargawa, S/o. Damar Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o. Ward

No. 03, Jevra Sirsa, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg,

Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Mr. T.K.Jha, Advocate

For State

:

Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order on Board

01-04-2022

Heard

1.

The present petition is against the order dated 07-09-2021

passed by the Collector, Mahasamund whereby the interim

custody of the vehicle sought for by the petitioner was rejected.

2

CRMP No.418 of 2022

2.

The brief facts of this case are that on 07.09.2021 on an

information received, the vehicle bearing No.CG-07-BY 2411

was intercepted and from the vehicle illicit liquor to the extent of

40 liters were seized. Therefore, the case was registered under

Section 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

Section 47-A(3) of the Act was drawn for confiscation of

vehicle. Further the Collector, who is authorised under Section

47-A(3) started confiscation proceeding for the vehicle. During

such confiscation proceeding, an application was filed by the

petitioner who is owner of the vehicle to release the vehicle and

interim custody of the vehicle was sought for, which was

dismissed. 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 07-09-2021. Perusal of the same

would engrafts the reasoning that since vehicle was seized

3

CRMP No.418 of 2022

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

Section 47-A(3) of the Act. Section 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 cov