ff-EI J 1< 'Slri'- •* s' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0. Lf3) / 2QU PETLTION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE L Petitioner/ Applicant CQDE, 1973 Bhuwanlal Diwan, S/o Bandj'iram Diwan, Aged about 36 years, R/o Singrupali, Post - Dumarpali, P.S. - l..'j..—:—r" N9,.——"""77.".','lyii M/y. Pit£>ura, Tahsil & Distt. ri ^t?.v..t^1""'"' "^S.'.ll..--"" Mahasamund-(C.G.) Dated...--—'"/ Versus Respondent Non-Applicant State of Chhattisgarh, Through - District Magistrate, Raipur, Distt.Raipur-(C.G.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2011 which is ./'" - . <"" -^ ^ r" passed by learned Addl. Session Judge, Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur-fC.G.) in Criminal Revision No.21/11. Copy of impugned order dated 01.07.2011 is filed herewith as 'Annexure A-l , hence this petition on following facts and grounds : XFHC—78 ~7ST'<fi<ii<n'-!, siTil<ri(o, [qwi-i-iy __.(>X.||..^,.l43lJ^i. 3)1^1 •q?q? ('i'lf^'i?) S^W W Wi* TWT 3?I^Tsft^l<^ (ti L- TOIIWdftd 311^1 SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra WIohan SHrivastava. J. 19-08-2011 ShriSuresh Verma, counsel fort^f Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Governijnent Heard. This petition has been filed passed by the Additional Sessions Jj Criminal Revision No.21/2011, by whic} the Judieial Magistrate First Class, Si( rejecting application for interim custody Learned counsel for the petition^i rejected the application holding that in| Section 6(E) of the Essential Commodit be allowed. Learned counsel submits th^t is pending before the Confiscating custody is very much maintainable bef( release could be exercised under the prij oftheCr.P.C. Learned State counsel was grant^c verify whether confiscation proceedi|igs Confiscating Authority or not. Learned from the office of the Collector (Food), has submitted that the confiscation proj Therefore, in view of the bar under Secti{in below have rightly rejected the applicatio|i chl^I<rf-(ftH •4i*i<nl Tf fs^ <f<q^i< ^affin sii^i e petitioner. Advocate for the State. aglgrieved by order dated 01-07-2011 jdge, Bhatapara, District Raipur, in |i, order dated 30-04-2011passed by jnga in Criminal Case No. 150/2011, (jfthe vehicle, has been affirmed. |r submits that the Court below have view of the provisions contained in jes Act, 1955, the application cannot -i^t unless the confiscation proceedings />|uthority, the application for interim )re the Magistrate and the power of frvisions contained in Section 451/457 t^d time on the last date of hearing to have been initiated by the counsel under written instructions F}aipur, vide memo dated 17-08-2011, ;eedings are pending in the matter. 6(E) of the Act of 1955, the Courts ofthe petitioner. Sfete + ...^^;. i:".. XI-HC—78 75T'::?TPTRTq,'^ft^FT?, fs«11'My,< . ^r,M.?.^. ^l/^ll 'J3; 31!^?;'q?^ (lj°lfA«<^(T) sn^i w R-fw '(T9TT 3TT^?l ^*l vn- Tumane L.. wgiw^tetan^r —^2-- The petitioner, if so advised, custody of the vehicle before the Confis With the aforesaid observation, <^i^I<ri41^ 'w^ff "^f 'f^st' <R>it$i< ^sifwsii^r i|iay move an application for interim >t;ating Authority. petition is finally disposed off. tliie '**'"'°*'Mohn s-*^. 'e ^ ^ f't ^ :>•