IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE QF£HHATT1SGARH ATBILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. .':;!.% .^../2011 PETITIONER 'f/ p,a. a,,,.,.....^--9-/yr::"2;' presented by.Shii -f;.-.^^ ( d......l.^.^--^-- RESPONDENT '-^. Murari Lal Choubey S/o Bhuwan Lal Choubey, Aged about 45 years R/o ViUage Karra, PoUce Station Ratanpur, Tahsil •^. Kota, District BUaspiu- (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through : Station House Officer, PoUce Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ' . / PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF^ODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE XI-HC—78 aiT^l'^l^tR; wil an^T snii* I^ ^. ^Sf !~PT, e?;tTh?TTO, Fsidiy^ .Cf-y.y^.:..^?.:..h.gs^l..'l W^T -v^f, (^if3«'^r) T' TOIWR TBfel 31^!!! SB : Hon'ble Shri manindra ivio •! 1 -08-2Q11 fdr unn t-Taaeep Rajgjr, counj Shri vaibhav Goverdhan, This petition has been- fl 1/7/11 passed in criminal revisic|i passea Dy the Magistrate has been affirmed. Learned counsei for the petitioner was aiiegedly used and Section 3/7 of the Essentidi 1955'). He submits that the Detl according 10 nim, his vehicle without his notice and knowiet petitioner is the registered owne| which would not iead to any usefjui want of proper care and confiscation proceedings have b| of the Act of 1955 and therefof interim custody. On the other hand, learik Touna transporting nuge quantlty submits that as the Coilector confiscate the vehicie under thel 1955. in view of the bar i^el for the petitioner. panel Lawver for the State. jied by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated jn No.118/11 by which the order dated 17/5/2011 L. rejec^ing application for interim custody of the vehicie [ hafe cresnea l-f •qrofif ^ fe^ Tfw?re ^flRriTan^ii han snnvastava, J. Oetitioner suDmits mai the venicie owned DV the commission of offence under Section 285 IPC |il Commodities Act, 1955. (for short ' the Act of jtioner has not been arraved as the accused and Ijias been put to illegai transportatlon of Diesei, pge. He further submits that even though the r, the Couns beiow have rejected his appiication, flui purpose, as the vehicie is iikely to be lunked for s. He further submits that tiii date, no feen initiated bv the Coiiecior under the provisions [•e, the vehicle ought to have been given in the maiilitenance. lea state counsei suDmits tnat me venicie was of Diesei without valid authoritv. He further s been designated as the authority competent to provisions contained in Section 6 A of the Act of unaer Section 6 t of ine Act of 19S5; the .1 ^/ ''•^y^V-sS'^' XI-HC—78 an^r ^il R-ii'ti Timan^rwiRi' -^' <* T ~3^ ^^Tv^, "g^ta^, ^dW^ c^ < IA-O.:i,^ 1 an^v 'v^a ("^f^aT^iT) TCTSR ^fet 311^1 —^ — aDDiication for arant of interim custbdv itself is not maintainable and the remedv of the petitioner lies -jn appro.acninfl yie confiscation authority for interim custody of 'thSVehicte. - • " The'bar createci under Secl where confiscation proceedings ar^ pending before the competent authority. The GQnfiscation proceedjngs -can be notice under Section 6 B be i? requiring the person afrected to Sessions Judge, it appears that initiated. Therefore, at this stage, t attracted. ^•^?;:' ;i,,.iit is founa thattheipetitionej vehfcie.has-been kept under seizurj Therefore, i am of the view that rejecting the application for intarim WlftTifrf •WTC'ff tf fttst T?sn$R ^sifimsn^T ion 6 E of the Act of 1955 wouid be attracted said to be initiated oniv when a show cause .suea initiating connscanon proceeaings ana >how cause. From tne order passed by the the confiscation proceedings have not been he bar created under Section 6 E would not be is tne registerea owner of ine venicie ana me 3 since 10/5/2011 . No useful purpose would be served by keepingthe'vehicre' in ci|stody and particularly, when the investigation is over arid'chaflan has aisp beeri fij^d. it wouid be proper to direct the petitioner to produce the vehicle at appropriat^ stage of triai by imposing proper conditions,. :ne Courts beiow nave commltteci iltegality by sustody of the vehicle. Accordingly, this petition is ^llowed and the orders of the Courts beiow are set aside. The vehicie of the petjtioner shaii be reieased on such condition, as may be imposed by the Magistralje. In the event, confiscation proceedings are initiated by the Coiiector under fhe Act of 1955 and in case, any order of confiscation is passed, the petit! competent authority. oner shaii surrender the vehicie before the -J-._ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastav Judge