Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2022 (ANNEXURE A-1), passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.06/2022, arising out of the order passed by the learned Excise Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in an Appeal Case No. R.E.C/-20/2020-21 vide order dated 24.07.2021 (wrongly mentioned as 02.12.2019 in the impugned order) filed by the applicant under section 47-B of Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 against the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Case No. B-121 Year 2019-20, the present petitioner prefers instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C . on the following facts and grounds: 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.04.2020, the Excise Sub-Inspector received secret information in Excise Circle Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) that a truck bearing registration No. PB-65- AV-1121 is standing in front of a Dhaba in village Harinchhapra and his driver is selling Goa Whisky. On that basis, the Excise Sub-Inspector alongwith staff reached the spot after some formalities and a home guard was sent with a hundred rupees note to the vehicle for purchasing a quarter of Goa spirit smoothness whisky and just after the same purchasing the Excise Sub-Inspector alongwith staff took the accused Nasib Singh in custody and from his possession total 6907.14 bulk liter of Goa spirit smoothness whisky kept in 800 cartons. A notice under Section 91 was given to the accused regarding permission of transporting the liquor which was given to the Excise Sub-Inspector which was seized by him and as per the documents the permit for export of foreign liquor was issued by Madhya Pradesh Excise permitting the Great Galleon Ventures Limited, Sejwaya, Dhar holder of license to export foreign liquor from his licensed premises at Sejwaya to the Ware House situated at M/s. North East Liquors, Bhalukpong, District West Kameng (Arunanchal Pradesh) and the license was valid from 19.03.2020 to 06.04.2020. The Excise Sub-Inspector due to expiry of the permit and illegal selling of the Goa Whisky by the present applicant arrested and offence under Section 34(1)(a)(b), 34(2) & 59-A of Chhattisgarh Excise Act was registered against the accused Nasib Singh. 3. The Excise Sub-Inspector due to expiry of the permit and illegal selling of the Goa Whisky by the present applicant arrested and offence under Section 34(1)(a)(b), 34(2) & 59-A of Chhattisgarh Excise Act was registered against the accused Nasib Singh. 3. The charge-sheet has been filed against the co-accused in which it is requested for permission to submit supplementary charge-sheet against other co-accused persons involved in the crime in question. 4. The accused persons of this case namely Nasib Singh and Ranjeet Singh were granted regular bail and anticipatory bail respectively by the High Court of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 17.11.2020 and 31.03.2021 in M.Cr.C. No. 3345/2020 & M.Cr.C.(A) No. 388/2021 respectively. 5. The District Excise Officer, Kawardha, District-Kabirdham sent a letter/report bearing no.-/Ex./AP./2020/654 dated 21.04.2020 to the Collector for confiscation of the vehicle Container Tata Truck bearing registration no. P.B.-65-AV-1121 and liquor seized by the Excise Sub- Inspector, Excise Circle Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in connection with Crime No. 12/2020, which was seized from the driver of the vehicle Nasib Singh. 6. The learned Collector sent an information to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha, regarding initiation of proceeding for confiscation of the aforesaid vehicle container truck on the basis of report of Excise Circle Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) and a show cause notice was also issued to the present applicant as he is the registered owner of the vehicle. 7. The reply to the show cause notice filed by the present applicant was rejected and an application for Supurdnama was also rejected and thereafter, the prosecution witnesses were called. 8. The statements of three prosecution witnesses namely Nitin Khanduja, Assistant District Excise Officer, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) and Pawan Yadav and Narayan Vishwakarma were recorded. The prosecution witnesses namely Pawan Yadav and Shatruhan Vishwakarma did not support the case of the prosecution, but only accepted their signature in the documents prepared by the investigating officer and thereafter only on the basis of evidence of Assistant District Excise Officer, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), it was held proved that the aforesaid vehicle container truck was involved in transportation of illicit liquor about 6907.14 bulk liter and order was passed for confiscation under Section 47 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 9. 9. The applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.01.2022, passed by the learned Collector, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) filed an appeal before the learned Excise Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) on the ground that the impugned order for confiscation is contrary to facts and circumstances of the case and also not according to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also it is illegal. It is further ground for appeal is that the proper appreciation of the fact could not be taken by the Collector on the fact that the case was prepared that illicit liquor was selling in village Harinchhapra, but no any witness from the village was examined or enlisted in the list of prosecution witnesses. It is further ground that the independent prosecution witnesses Pawan Yadav and Narayan Vishwakarma did not support the case of the prosecution and only accepted their signature on blank paper and clearly mentioned that no any illicit liquor was seized in their presence and also denied the entire investigation conducted by the investigating officer. 10. It is further ground that that the entire investigation including report for confiscation was prepared by prosecution witness Khanduja, ??. 1 Excise District Assistant Nitin Officer, Kawardha, District Kabirdham and the driver of the vehicle was having effective and valid license for transportation of the liquor which was being transported to Etanagar and license was issued by Excise Department of Himanchal Pradesh Government. The opportunity of hearing was not properly given to the applicant and without recording his evidence of the applicant the order was passed which is illegal and arbitrary and the mandatory provisions before confiscation could not be conducted by the Collector, therefore, the order impugned dated 28.01.2021 is liable to be net aside/quashed. 11. The learned Excise Commissioner, Chhattisgarh registered the case and the same was decided by order dated 24.07.2021 and held that the Collector has passed the order under Section 47 of Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 for confiscation of the vehicle after going through the entire documents and considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits. 12. 12. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Excise Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under section 47-C of Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 before the learned Session Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 06/2022 and the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order dated 03.06.2022, therefore, the applicant/petitioner prefers the instant application on the following amongst other grounds. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle container truck bearing registration no.PB-65-AV-1121 and the same was not being used in crime in question and the order of confiscation was not in accordance with law. The present applicant is entitled to get his container truck on Supurdnama (Interim custody), in light of the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 13.1- An opportunity to the person referred in Clause (c) of making a representation against proposed confiscation though it is not specifically mentioned in Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act of 1915, the material collected in support of confiscation should also be supplied. The supply of the material on the basis of which opinion has been formed for confiscation of vehicle is included in the opportunity as contemplated under Section 47-A (3) (c) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 . To enable the person to defend himself properly, it is necessary that the material on the basis of which opinion has been formed should also be supplied. It is further submitted by the counsel that the Collector while confiscating the seized intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance is also obliged to give a hearing to the person mentioned in Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act. The order impugned as well as the earlier orders are bad in law as the provision of sub-section (3) of section 47-C have not been complied with by the Collector, therefore, the initiation and order of confiscation was not only bad in law, but erroneous and liable to be dismissed as well, therefore the vehicle may kindly be released on Supurdnama in favour of the present applicant. 13.2- He further contended that the seized container truck is no use to keep in either police station or the court below and present applicant will produce the same as and when required and the same was not been seized for an offence under section 34(1)(a)(b), 34(2) & 59-A of Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 1915, as per sub-section (2) of section 47-A of the Act, therefore, the vehicle may kindly be released on interim custody (Supurdnama) in favour of the applicant. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and further be pleased to pass an order to release the container truck bearing registration no. PB-65-AV-1121 of the applicant which is seized by Excise Circle Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), in the interest of justice. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would support the impugned order and submit that order of confiscation has rightly been passed by the Collector, which has been affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities is in accordance with law and as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 16. Section 47-A of the Act of 1915 was inserted in the Act of 1915 by M.P. Act No.22 of 2000 w.e.f. 4.8.2000. Subsection (2) of Section 47A of Act of 1915 provides for confiscation. It can be exercised if Collector is satisfied that an offence covered by clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 34 has been committed and where the quantity of liquor found at the time or in the course of detection of such offence exceeds fifty bulk liters he may, on the ground to be recorded in writing, order the confiscation of the intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. so seized. 17. Subsection (3) of Section 47A of the Act of 1915 provides as under:- “(3) No order under subsection (2) shall be made unless the Collector has- (a) sent an intimation in a form prescribed by the Excise Commissioner about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of seized intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. so seized. 17. Subsection (3) of Section 47A of the Act of 1915 provides as under:- “(3) No order under subsection (2) shall be made unless the Collector has- (a) sent an intimation in a form prescribed by the Excise Commissioner about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of seized intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. to the court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made; (b) issued a notice in writing to the person from whom such intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. have been seized and to any person staking claim to it and to any other person who may appear before the Collector to have an interest in it; (c) afforded an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) above of making a representation against proposed confiscation; (d) given to the officer effecting the seizure under subsection (1) and to the person or persons who have been noticed under clause (b) a hearing.” 18. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that as per clause (a) of subsection (3) of Section 47A of the Act of 1915, the Collector has to send an intimation in the form prescribed by the Excise Commissioner about the initiation of proceedings for confiscation of seized intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. to the court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. The Collector is further obliged to issue a notice in writing to the person from whom such intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. have been seized and to any person staking claim to it and to any other person who may appear before the Collector to have an interest in it. 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Rajendra Kumar Gupta v. State of M.P. & another reported in 2002(4) M.P.L.J. 149 has held that issuance of notice to the driver or the person from whom vehicle was seized is mandatory and order of confiscation passed without hearing the person from whose possession the illicit liquor or contraband is seized is illegal. 20. Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act of 1915 provides an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) above of making a representation against proposed confiscation. 21. In the matter of Khem Chand v . 20. Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act of 1915 provides an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) above of making a representation against proposed confiscation. 21. In the matter of Khem Chand v . Union of India and others in AIR 1958 SC 300 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India which provides that no person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against action proposed to be taken in regard to him. It has been held that an opportunity to make a representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him, which he can only do if the competent authority, after the enquiry is over and after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charges proved against the government servant tentatively proposes to inflict one of the three punishments and observed as under: “19. To summarise: the reasonable opportunity envisaged by the provision under consideration includes: (a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based; (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence; and finally (c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflected on him, which he can only do if the competent authority, after the enquiry is over and after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charges proved against the government servant tentatively proposes to inflict one of the three punishments and communicates the same to the government servant. In short the substance of the protection provided by rules, like R. 55 referred to above, was bodily lifted out of the rules and together with an additional opportunity embodied in S. 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 so as to give a statutory protection to the government servants and has now been incorporated in Art.311(2) so as to convert the protection into a constitutional safeguard.” 22. Similarly, an opportunity to the person referred in clause (c) of making a representation against proposed confiscation though it is not specifically mentioned in clause (c) of subsection (3) of Section 47A of the Act of 1915, that the material collected in support of confiscation should also be supplied. In the considered opinion of this Court, the supply of the material on the basis of which opinion has been formed for confiscation of vehicle in question is included in the opportunity as contemplated under Section 47A(3)(c) of the Act of 1915. To enable the person to defend himself properly, it is necessary that the material on the basis of which opinion has been formed should also be supplied. 23. Likewise, the Collector while confiscating the seized intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance is also obliged to give a hearing to the person mentioned in clause (b) of sub section (3) of Section 47A of the Act of 1915. 24. The word 'hearing' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6 th Edition, page 721 as under: The introduction and admissibility of evidence is usually mere lax in a hearing than in a civil or criminal trial (see e.g. 42 U.S.C.A. $ 405(b) which provides for admissibility of evidence at social security hearings that would otherwise be inadmissible at regular trial). Hearings are extensively employed by both legislative and administrative agencies and can be adjudicative or merely investigatory. Adjudicative hearings can be appealed in a court of law. Congressional committees often hold hearings prior to enactment of legislation; these hearings are then important sources of legislative history.” 25. The Advanced Law Lexicon-2005 th edition defines “hearing” as the trial of a suit is called a “hearing” and technically considered, this includes not only introduction of the evidence and arguments of the counsels, but the pronouncing of the decree by the presiding officer. 26. The Patna High Court in the matter of Sheikh Abdul Rahman v. Shiblal Sahu and others in 3 AIR 1922 Patna 252 defined the “hearing” as a judicial session held for the purpose of deciding issues of fact or that of law; in administrative law, presentment of argument by the affected individual to the decision making authority. 27. 26. The Patna High Court in the matter of Sheikh Abdul Rahman v. Shiblal Sahu and others in 3 AIR 1922 Patna 252 defined the “hearing” as a judicial session held for the purpose of deciding issues of fact or that of law; in administrative law, presentment of argument by the affected individual to the decision making authority. 27. In the matter of Kanaran Nambiar v. Ramunni Nambiar in AIR 1961 Kerala 290 , the Kerala High Court has held that “hearing” as used in the Code of Civil Procedure does not mean the 'hearing of arguments' only. It refers to all the stages of the trial of a suit namely, the settling of issues, taking of evidence and hearing of arguments or 'other proceedings tendency to a final adjudication of the suit. 28. Thus, in the light of legal provisions noticed hereinabove and conditions precedent for passing the order of confiscation and principles of law noticed, it is quite vivid that before confiscating the seized intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. as mentioned in Section 47-A (3) (a) of the Act of 1915, the Collector is obliged to send an intimation in the prescribed form about the initiation of proceedings for confiscation of seized articles to the court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. The Collector is further obliged to issue a notice in writing to the person from whom such intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. have been seized and to any person staking claim to and to any other person who may appear before the Collector to have an interest in it and thereafter he has to afford an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) of making a representation against proposed confiscation and lastly, he is obliged to give a hearing to the officer effecting the seizure under sub-ection (1) and to the person or persons who have been noticed under clause (b) a hearing. 29. The aforesaid conditions precedent are sinequa non for passing a valid order of confiscation of the vehicle seized in excise offence. 29. The aforesaid conditions precedent are sinequa non for passing a valid order of confiscation of the vehicle seized in excise offence. If one of the conditions precedent is missing while passing the order of confiscation, the said order would be vulnerable and liable to be set aside as order of confiscation involves a drastic action against owner of the property by which he (owner) is completely deprived of owning the property having civil consequences. Therefore, the provisions relating to effecting confiscation have to be construed strictly being penal provision. 30. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid principle of law noticed herein-above, it is quite vivid that in the instant case, the Collector did not issue any notice to the petitioner along with the materials in support of proposed confiscation proceedings at any point of time. It appears from the records that since the petitioner has already appeared before the Collector by filing an application seeking interim custody of the subject vehicle, the learned Collector held that since he is already appearing, therefore, the provisions as contained in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act of 1915 stood complied with, whereas it is not so. The Collector did not issue any notice of confiscation proceeding to Mr. Nasib Singh from whom the vehicle was seized on 19.04.2020, nor issued notice to the petitioner along with material brought on record for confiscation who is admittedly owner of the vehicle. Incidentally, the petitioner had filed an application for interim custody of the vehicle, the Collector held that sufficient compliance of Section 47-A(3) (b) of the Act of 1915 has been done, which is absolutely illegal finding. He ought to have issued the notice to both the persons and could have supplied the materials in support of notice said to be issued for confiscation enabling them to defend properly the confiscation proceedings. 31. The only submission made is that the provisions contained in Section 47A(3) (a) to (c) of the Act of 1915 have not been complied with, therefore, the order of confiscation is bad in law. 32. Original record has been requisitioned by this Court. 31. The only submission made is that the provisions contained in Section 47A(3) (a) to (c) of the Act of 1915 have not been complied with, therefore, the order of confiscation is bad in law. 32. Original record has been requisitioned by this Court. A careful perusal of the record would show that so far as compliance of the provisions contained in Section 47A(3) (a) of the Act of 1915 is concerned, intimation has been sent about the initiation of confiscation proceeding by learned Collector to the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 34(2) of the Act of 1915. Similarly, the Collector has issued show cause notice to the petitioner for compliance of the provisions contained in Section 47A(3)(b) of the Act of 1915 as the vehicle has been seized from possession of the petitioner on 19.04.2020 and as such, the provisions contained in Section 47A(3)(a) and (b) have been complied with. 33. Now the question is whether the provisions contained in Section 47A(3)(c) and (d) of the Act of 1915 have been complied with or not as it is the case of the petitioner that neither he has been given material collected in support of proposed confiscation nor he has been given an opportunity of making a representation against proposed confiscation. 34. A careful perusal of the record would show that after the reply is filed and evidence of the prosecution is recorded, the Collector straightway after hearing the parties passed an order of confiscation, as such, neither material collected for confiscating the vehicle was supplied to the petitioner nor he was given an opportunity of making a representation against proposed confiscation, as such, there is total non compliance of the provisions contained in Section 47-A(3)(c) of the Act of 1915. Since the vehicle has been seized from possession of the petitioner, he was required to be supplied the material collected and was required to be given an opportunity of making a representation against proposed confiscation as the order of confiscation involves drastic civil consequences. 35. Since the vehicle has been seized from possession of the petitioner, he was required to be supplied the material collected and was required to be given an opportunity of making a representation against proposed confiscation as the order of confiscation involves drastic civil consequences. 35. In that view of the matter, the learned Collector as well as the appellate and the revisional authorities has committed illegality in passing the order of confiscation without complying with mandatory provisions contained in Section 47-A(3)(c) and (d) of the Act of 1915 and consequently, the order of confiscation passed by the Collector as affirmed by the Excise Commissioner and the Additional Sessions Judge are hereby set aside. The petitioner's vehicle be released forthwith. 36. The instant petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.