Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh @ Ramdev vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-5405-2018
(SURESH @ RAMDEV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 14-03-2018
Mr. B.J. Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. C.K. Mishra, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
sh This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for e release of the vehicle Maruti Celerio bearing registration No. MP 16- ad C- 7662, which has been seized in connection with Crime Pr No.142/2017, registered at police station â Lavkush Nagar, for offence under Section 34 (2) of the MP Excise Act.
a hy
2. It is alleged that the vehicle was carrying cartoons in which 33 boxes of country made liquor without licence. Offence was registered ad and the vehicle has been seized along with the liquor.
M
3. The petitioner Suresh filed an application for release of the vehicle which was dismissed by learned JMFC, Lavkushnagar vide of order dated 19.06.2017. Subsequently Criminal Revision rt No.157/2017 was filed, which was allowed by learned ASJ, Link ou Court, Lavkushnagar and the vehicle was directed to be released on furnishing two sureties of 2.5 Lacs each and supurdginama of C Rs.5Lacs only before the trial Court. When the supurdginama was h filed on 14.10.2017, learned trial Court refused to release the vehicle ig on the ground that on 13.06.2017 information was received that H proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle has been initiated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle was earlier directed to be released on supurdginama. Subsequently, the report was received stating confiscation proceeding has been initiated before the District Magistrate. Therefore, the impugned order is not good in the eyes of law. The petitioner is entitled to receive the vehicle on supurdginama till the decision of the case.
5. On behalf of the respondent, the application is opposed on the ground that when the proceeding for confiscation has been initiated, the vehicle cannot be released on supurdginama. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference.
6. Heard the parties and perused the record. Trial under Section 34 of the MP Excise Act is yet to commence before the trial Court. No doubt, confiscation of the vehicle can be done by the District Magistrate under Section 47 of the MP Excise Act but the vehicle can only be confiscated when it is found that vehicle in question has been used for contravention of provisions of the MP Excise Act. In the case of Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., 2000 (1) MPLJ, the Full Bench of this Court has laid down the principle that once the criminal case was sh pending, confiscation proceedings should not be held and finalised.
e The judgment rendered by the Full Bench has been affirmed by the ad Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao, 2008(1) JLJ 427.
7. Pr In view of the above, and the circumstances prevailing in the a case, this Court deem it fit to release the vehicle on supurdginama till hy the decision in Criminal Case of Crime No.142/2017.
ad
8. Therefore, this petition is allowed. Learned trial Court is M directed to release the vehicle as per the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by learned ASJ, Chhatarpur in Criminal Revision No.157/2017.
of
9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
rt ou (SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) C JUDGE h ig Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN H SHUKLA Date: 2018.04.13 16:14:49 +05'30' ks