Chattisgarh High Court
Rohit Sarathi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2022
Author: Nk Chandravanshi
Bench: Nk Chandravanshi
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1034/2022
• Rohit Sarathi, son of Shaukilal Sarathi, aged about 31
years, resident at Kharwani Para, Baramkela, Distt.
Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Distt. Magistrate, Raigarh,
Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)
2. Station House Officer, through PS Baramkela, Distt.
Raigarh (CG)
---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Adv.
For respondent/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice NK Chandravanshi Order on Board 25-7-2022
1. This CRMP under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19-5-2022 passed by the Collector, Raigarh in Misc. Case No.202107041000050/86/B- 121/2020-21 whereby the Collector has dismissed the application filed by the applicant for releasing his vehicle on Supurdnama.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6-5-2021, 60 bulk litre of country mahua liquor was seized from the petitioner and other co-accused which was being illegally transported in Artiga car bearing registration No. CG 13 UC 2384 (in short 'vehicle in question'). The vehicle was also seized by the Police. Offence was registered under Section 34(2) and 59(A) of the CG Excise Act, 1915 (in short 'the Act'). On being report made by the police, the Collector started confiscation proceeding for the vehicle and notice was issued to the petitioner for confiscation of the vehicle in question. During the confiscation proceeding, the petitioner, who is claiming himself as owner of the vehicle, filed an application for releasing the vehicle in question on supurdnama which has been rejected by the impugned order.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though confiscation proceedings have been commenced, but it does not put any bar to release the vehicle on interim custody. It is submitted that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in the custody and the vehicle would get damaged by the lapse of time.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned order.
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. Perusal of sub-section (2) of the above act would show that power has been given to the District Magistrate (Collector) upon production of the article and on having satisfied that offence covered under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 34 has been committed and if liquor is more than 5 bulk liters, he may order for confiscation of articles, intoxicants, implements, utensils including the conveyance so seized. It also provides that he may during pendency of the proceeding may pass an order of interim nature for custody, disposal etc. of the confiscated intoxicants, articles, implements, conveyance as may appear to be necessary in the facts of this case.
7. Section 47-B of the Act provides for appeal against the order of confiscation. Therefore, it necessarily leads that order of confiscation can only be challenged when it reaches its finality and the statute do not give any space to challenge any other order except the final one. In view of this, the necessary implication would be that any order of interim nature if any passed, the High Court in exercise of it's power vested in it under Article 227 can always test the propriety or legality of the order. It is a settled proposition of jurisprudence that every wrong will have a remedy. So if the order is found to be wrong then certainly the High Court would have all the power to correct the same.
38. The impugned order dated 19-5-2022 shows that no reasons have been assigned for rejection of application for supurdnama, except that illegal liquor was transported through the vehicle and if the vehicle is handed over to the petitioner, it would have bad impact on the society. The Collector has failed to consider that if the vehicle is kept in the police station, it is prone to cause natural decay and may loose its road worthiness. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, the Apex Court has laid down that in case of vehicles seized during investigation, they should not be allowed to deteriorate by being kept unused and unattended in the premises of the police stations. Therefore, the vehicle has to be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions. In view of above, the order of rejection of application for interim custody cannot be allowed to sustain. Consequently, applying the said principles, it is directed that the vehicle be released in favour of petitioner by way of interim measure, if the confiscation proceedings have not been concluded till date of production of this order.
9. Therefore, the vehicle in question is directed to be released to the petitioner on the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall satisfy that he is owner of the vehicle. ii. Before release of vehicle proper panchnama be prepared. iii. Photographs of vehicle be taken and bond should also be produced that the article would be produced if required at the time of trial or confiscation.
iv. Proper security and personal bond of the owner, amounting to present value of like vehicle, be obtained before release of vehicle.
10. In view of foregoing discussions, the petition succeeds and is allowed. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak/-