Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 572 (MP)

Parshubhai v. State of M. P.

2014-05-09

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2014
ORDER 1. By this petition under section 482 of the CrPC the petitioner Parshubhai has challenged the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner under section 451 of the CrPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jobat, District Alirajpur in Criminal Revision No.29/2013. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 6.12.2012 at 3:20 pm the SHO of police station Chandrashekhar Azad Nagar, Alirajpur upon information had stopped a jeep bearing Registration No.GJ20-A-2852 from Mahindra Kothar travelling towards Gujarat and seized 45 boxes containing illicit liquor. The petitioner has preferred the application under section 451 of the CrPC before the trial Court being an owner of the jeep for its supurdagi. The application was however rejected by the trial Court; being aggrieved the petitioner had filed a revision before the revisional Court and the revisional Court had also upheld the dismissal and hence the present petition under section 482 of the CrPC. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the jeep belongs to the petitioner and there was no reason why the jeep was being retained by the respondent. Counsel relied on Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P. and others reported in 2000(1) J.L.J. 304 (FB) and Jagtarsingh v. State of M.P. reported in 2004(II) MPWN. 48 to state that petitioner was entitled to the supurdagi since vehicle and other articles are likely to deteriorate in custody, moreover if the investigation was over; they should not be barred by retaining the property in custody of the Court. Counsel prayed that orders of both the Courts below are contrary to the provisions of law and the application filed by the petitioner be allowed by setting aside the order and directing the trial Court to hand over the vehicle on supurdagi to the petitioner. He was also willing to abide by any conditions as may be imposed by the Court. 4. Counsel for the respondent/State has pointed out that the vehicle has been confiscated under section 46 of the Excise Act and there is bar by under section 47-D of M.P. Excise Act. He however candidly admitted that the same application could be moved before the confiscating authority i.e. District Magistrate and it would be considered in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. He however candidly admitted that the same application could be moved before the confiscating authority i.e. District Magistrate and it would be considered in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. In view of the above, I find that the petition can be disposed off with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider the proper application to be filed by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today. Till then it is directed that jeep shall not be sold and the application shall be considered in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to say this Court is not making any observations on merit of the case, necessary order be passed as expediously as possible.