($9 H§§H IXJURT OF CHHATTI$$AR§-i. E3Li‘ASm3R ($inqie $ench: i-ion’bie Shri $umi Kama? $inha, J) Wpmi No‘ 47'6 m' 2M1 Janakranr‘x Vs . -:m State m Vhhattia’sgarh. $RBE§ Posi far Orderz [03/2011 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HIGH SOURT GF CHHATT‘SGARH. EIL£mSPUR (Sinqie Bench: Hon’bie Shri Sunif Kumar $inh'a J) W.P.(C) No. 4?6 of 20H ‘PETiTiGNER Janakram, 8/0 Late Daliuram, ageCf abcut 47. years, R/o Village Bagdega, TahSii-Kharsia, DiStt. Raigarh (CG). Véf$ii ‘ RES?ONE)ENT St " Chhaiiisgarh Through Eistrict f\ te, Ramarh (C ‘ {Writ Peiitmn umier Artigie 226/227 3f the honsmution o 'ndna; ilppaa “we Qc n m M manmm ohmgai and Mtx Sanjay Agrawai, Advocates for the’ peff o ”my Panei Lawyer forthe State. omER (23,03,2011) bumi human“ amna. J. k’ “r (Amtexure-P-t) passed by District Coltectm Kaigarh, by which, the said authm’ity hag deme‘ o :eie-age the moter—cycte of the petitioner on his interim custody tit! dieposai m me Cemiecation proceeding Not 54/8- ”t ix uzuow—iO‘ W‘rm A Thig Witt petitmm la uneptea agamsl tne o uci oate.‘ ‘ 08.20tG A~ t u.- The facts, bi‘ieiiy stated, are ae under:- Petitionet: Janakram is the i'egietei‘ed owner of TVS-fiame motoi- oycie hearing regietration No. CGI3-K/5235. The eaio' motor-cyoie of the petitioner was seized on t3 G" ‘0 n connection With an offence u/e 59 f.» e} .a~.. W.P.(C) N0. 4?6 of 2011 tin n "m- L‘- w; a 34(A) 0 muse Am me peuuuner fiied an appiicatian‘wE 451 pr P C beme me C IefJudmuai Magnauate naigam IL was dismlased on 28.061 0. A criminai revision was filed agai‘rxst the said order. The revision was dismissed on 29.07.10 merea’ter an apphcation was filed before the Coiiector for reieasing the vehicle on interim custody, which was diemisssed by the impugned order dated 16.08.10. The petitioner, against ihe eaid order, fiied a revision before the Sessions Coon, which was dismissed on 16.00.10 Against t 1e order passed by the Sessions Com, me petitioner med a petition u/s 482 Ct‘.P.C., which came to be registered as Cr.i‘vi.P. No. 823/2010. The Cr.i‘v1.P. was atso dismissed 'oy the High Cowt vide order dated 1.14 i0 T1 ‘ “gn Court white dismissing the CrMP. observed in para 11 & 12 as under:- /X u- WAAA “A A Li, ii. in view Oi uie aioresaiu discussion, no revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is n‘iaintainabie against the order passed by the Confiscating Authority in the matter of grant or retusai of interim custody during the pendenoy of confiscation proceedings A revision before the i SeSsions Judge wouio tie against t e order passed in appeai .inder Section 47 B of the Act by the appeiiate authority. That is not the case herein. Therefore l have to hold that the revision filed by the appiioant before the Sessiions Judge itsett is not ii Vinita“ a”? a xu miauo ivcivi-u ii’i iaw i4 The petition under Secuon 4o2 Cr.P.C. is fineiiy disposed of. " on a; 'Vis Shariniia $ ingai and Mi Sanjay Agiawai teaineo oounsei i u u ' ‘t .u appearing on behaif oi the petitioner, submitted that the vehioie oi the petitioner is tying in stationary condition since 13.06.10; the proceedings of confiscation is tikeiy to take some more time; therefore, the vehicie may 'oe reieased on the interim custody of the petitioner. @ W,PH(€3) N0. 476 C)? 2M1 4) On i‘ie other, Mr. Shashank Thakur, Ieamed panei kawyer appearmg on behalf of the 5State, opposea me$e arguments. I u .L‘ 5) i have heard learnad courwssei for the par‘deas at length arwd have ai$0 peruseu me records, of the Wi'it petition. -| u ’! t?nA 6) it is not dieputed by the couneel for the State that the petitiOher is the registered owrrer of the vehicle and the registration beck stande on the name of the petitioner. it is aieo not dieputed that the eaio‘ vehioie was Seized on 13.06.10 and the earne is tying i‘n etationary conditioh since me Said date. The vehicie has been seized in connection with a crime reieting r.wo Exoiee Act and the confiscation proceeding is pendihg before the competent Authority (Coiiector Raigarh) u/e 47-8 of the Excise Act, 19 A t a. I" LI- T) Mr. Theku‘r hae argued that since the vehicie is iiabie to ‘oe oonfieoeted. therefore, it shouio‘ not be reieaseo‘ on interim ouetody. 8) in catena of the deoieions inoiuo‘ing Paremr‘eet 3ingit -—Vs— 3tate of i‘vt’.P., fep‘or‘t‘éif iii i§§§§m MPYI‘VW 1&7; Keir'aSh —Vs- 3iaie of M.P., reporter}? in wee ’ii ttr‘IPWN 133; & fvt'anoi Matriiye ~‘r/s- State of MR, t'epoiteti in 2:362 2‘) MRHJ 15o, it has been held that interim custody of the motor vehioie cannot be denied on the ground of it being iia'ole to ‘oe oonfieoated at the termination of the proceeding. Therefore, the vehioie may be given to its registered owner on interim custody, inspite of the liabiiity of the oonfiecation. 9) Moreover, no truittui purpose would be served in keeping the motor-oyoie in stationary condition for a long time because it will effect its "‘1 - i i i i §g& 4 w.p.(c) No. 47a of 2M1 machinery and wou¥d be useiess for the party who may receive it at the em, due to eiapse of iime. 1Q) in the resuit, the petition is aliowed, the impugned order dated 16.08.10 (Annexure—P-1) passed by Coiiector, Raigarh ih confiscation proceeding No. 54iB—121/2009-1O ie quashed it is directed that the eaid motor-cycie shaii be reieased on interim outtody of the petitioner upon hie furnishing a bond (Supurdnama) of RS. 50,000/— with one surety of the like sum to the eatistaotion of the concerned Coiieotor subject to the ‘ condition that the petitioner shaii not aiienate thisvehicie; he shalt also not change its condition, coiour etc; and shaii produce the vehicle as and when directed to the petitioner by the said authority. i No orders a3 to cost. AA Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge «K N rahui