1

WPCR No.688 of 2021

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPCR No. 688 of 2021

1. Omkar Prasad Agrawal S/o Nand Ram Agrawal, Aged About

62 Years R/o Village Basna, Police Station Basna, Tahsil

Basna, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Station House Officer, Police

Station Singhoda, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

2. Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, District Mahasamund

Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate

For Respondent/State

Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order on Board

17-3-2022

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

2

WPCR No.688 of 2021

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 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 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.

3

WPCR No.688 of 2021

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

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 covered by clause

(a) orclause (b) of sub-section