HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAiaPUR APPLICANT HON-APPyCANT VERSUS Cr. M.P. No.S62/2009 Shiviuurat S/o Makhan. Prasad Aged about 56 years, R/o Station Maroda, Tahsil and District Duig, (C.G.). State ofChItatdsgarhTbroughDistrict Magistrate Duig, District -Duig (C.G.). APPLICATIOM XntDER SECTION 482 OF THB CODB OF CMMINAL PROCBDURE. 1973. (8B iHon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri R.K. Jain,.Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. ShriAshish Gupta, t?,L. for the State/non-applicant. QRAL-ORDBR (Passedon 03/12/2009) 1. This Mapetition iuiderSection482 offhe Code ofCriminalProcedure, 1973 for quahsment of the order dated 24/10/09 passed by the 9* Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dui^ ia criimnal revision No. 85/09 affirming fhe order dated 3/6/09 passed by Judicial M^istrate First Class, Dvcrg iu criminal case No. 220/09 whereby the uitema custody of fh.e aaotorcycle N0. C.G. 07-EC 5466 has been denied on fhe grozmd fhat coufiscation proGeeding has been mitiated under Scction 47-A of fhe C.G. Excise Act, 1950, 2i Leamed counsel for the petitioner vehfiiaentty argued that First Information Rcport relating to tfae cnme does uot reveals that present vehicle is beiag used ia comaussion offhe offence, vehicle has been seized fixim fhe Jitendra , Kiuaar accused of fhe case but iu absence of aay niaterial to conneet the vehicle wifh cruae ia question coafiscation proceeding is iUegaUy, Leamed counsel fbr the petitkiner furfher submits fhat iEtterimi the vehicle has been denied by the Judicial Magisteate First Class, Dvrg asd :jthereby committed aa iUegality. custody of •Tf^- <£-. On the ofher haads, learaed couasel for fhe State/non-appUcaat opposed fhe petition. The order impugned reveals fhat confiscation proceediug has been initiated by the complaiiiaut authority imder Sectioa 47-A of the C.G. Exrise Act, 1950 subsection 2 of Section 47-A inakes fhe prov^ions for mterun custody during peudency ofsuch pnx;eediag relatiag to vetucle on the application of agreed person but present petitioner has not approached the appropriate authority, appropriate aufhority is not decided the mater finaUy. Taldng iuto eonsideiation the altemate remedy available to the petttioner specificalty provided ui tiie 'Act, I do not find any ground for invoking extraordiuaiy iiiherent jurisdiction ia terms of Section 482 of the Code. Consequenfty, this petition is Uable to be dismissed aad it te hereby dismissed. T.P. Sha^na Judse I :ll