HIGH (30URT OF CHHATWSGARH AT EKELA$MJR Qx&wggmggt2§ Petitiongg Chhote La! Jai$wal Sic Shri Ramayan Jai$waL agea‘ abcur 38 years, occnmmra buSine5$, re$ident of Bhanpuri, Raipur, Dista’ést Raipur (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarhi Thmugh the Station Hause Officet, Paiice Statian Basantpur, Poiice District-Bairampur (CG) r Resnondem (Petiiion under $ectian 482? of the cvF’C) (SE Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Mr. $haifendra Dubey, counsei for the petitioner. MLRajendra Tr§path§, Pane: !awyer fer the respond&nt’$tate. QRDER {Pasgad an 2““ Swtemben 2999) , The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 4$2 of the Code of Criminal Prmedure, 19713 (in Short ‘the Code’) for qua$hment of the Omar dated 3,12,2007 passed by the Fitst Additicnal Sessions Judge (FTC): Ramanujganj, in Criminal Revision No.115/2007 afmming the order dated 17,8200? gassed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj, in Crime No.4’i/O7 whereby teamed Judiciai Magistrate First Ciass has dismissed the appiication for interim custody of the vehieie filed by the petitioner. The order is challenged on the ground that the Court below has reiected the application for interim custedy filed under $eotion 451 of the (:ode ’withoet there being any intimation to the Judicial Magistrate First Class relating to intimation of eonfiscation and without there being an opportunity of hearing to the netitioner who is owner of the vehicle i have heard learned counsel for the parties andperused the orcier impugned, order of the trial Court, eopy of charge sheet and other documents filed on behaif of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector has not intimated to the Judicial Magistrate First Class for confiscation of the alleged vehicle and no notice has been issued to the petitioner who is owner ‘of the vehicle! therefore, he is entitled for interim custody of the property. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Manoi Malviya @ v, State of MP. reported in 2002 (2) MPHI 15D in which the High Caurt of Madhya Pradesh has held that the Coult may give the interim cu$to¢y of hz~ the vehicie even iiabie for confiscatian under Section 47~A of the Excise Act. , On the timer hand, order impugned is supported an behaif (if the respondent/State. . Fmm petuwi of the order of the triai Court, it reveaie that the Canasta! hats sent intimation’ of coniisnation to the Judicial Magistrate First Ciaee which has been specifieaiiy mentianed in the order of the trial Court, Capy of charge eheet also reveals that detail report has been submitted to the Cellector. Cram! ef ordersheeis reveals that intimaticn ass required uncier sub-eection (3) of Seetien 47-A of the Chhatiiegerh Excise Act, 1915 (in short ‘the Act, 1915’) hes been sent by the Ceileetar to the Court eoncerned, The Cclleeter is required to iesue malice to the persene fmm when: article hae been seized and to any person staking claim to it and to any other pereon wha may appear before the Colieetor to have an interest in it. l in the present case, the petitioner has not shown anything that he has ciaimed befere the Colleetor er hes appeared and has shewn any interest ever the prepertyl in the absenee of euch claim, the Gollector is mt under obligation to issue. notice to the petitioner and under sub-section (2) of Section 4?—A 0f the Act, 191% the Coilecter is comnetent to pass en order or interim nature for the orrstooy or'dieposal etch of the property. . In the light of epecifio provision under sub-section (2) of Seotion 47-A of the Act, 1915 having alternative remedy, too not find any scope for interference in terms of Sieotion 482 of the Corie. . (Sonsequently: the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby sul- , y T. P. Sharma .s‘ij ‘ so, 7‘ I¥ Judg ' ' ‘ dismissed.