Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjay Lahare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Cr.M.P No.283 of 2023
Sanjay Lahare S/o Raj Kumar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village -
Beergahani (Beergaon), Tahsil - Mungeli, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh. ----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Superintendent Of Police
Mungeli,District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ----Respondent
For Petitioner: Shri Parasmani Shriwas, Advocate. For Respondent/State: Shri Devesh Verma, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 10.02.2023
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for releasing the Vehicle i.e motorcycle CD Deluxe bearing registration No. CG 10 EL 6735, which has been seized by the Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Crime No.197/2022 for the offence under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (for short 'the Act of 1915') and confiscated by the order of the Collector, District Mungeli in E-Court No.202209250600016/B- 121/2021-22 on Supurdnama.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and used the same for his personal work. He further submits that on 14.08.2022, the police officers of PS Jarhagaon have seized 14.94 bulk liters of country made liquor from the said vehicle, which was driven by accused Kanhaiya Sonwani 2 and by way of the impugned order, the said vehicle was confiscated and therefore, the Petitioner has preferred an application for releasing the same on supurdnanma, which was disallowed. He further submits that the order impugned is bad in law as the trial has not been concluded, therefore, the said vehicle may be released on supurdnama till final disposal of the trial.
3. On the contrary, Shri Verma submits that there is a remedy of Appeal against the order passed by the Collector, which is provided under Section 47-B of the Act of 1915, therefore, the instant Petition is not tenable and the same deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed herewith carefully.
5. In the Act of 1915, a mechanism has been provided against the confiscation order for the Appeal under Section 47-B of the said Act, and the State counsel submits that as per sub-section 2(c) of Section 62 of the said Act, rules relating to Appeal and review have already been framed through which, against the order passed by the Collector, an Appeal lies to the Excise Commissioner as an appellate authority to hear such Appeal and the same issue also came up before the co-ordinate bench in the matter of Ranjit Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Writ Petition Criminal No.604 of 2018 decided on 29.01.2019 in which, it has been held that when the alternate remedy is available, the Petition is not maintainable.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Petition is not tenable 3 and the same is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself.
7. Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the order impugned to the Petitioner after obtaining photocopy of the same and the Petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternate remedy available to him in accordance with law, if so advised .
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya