Mahfooj Kha v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.2009 of 2018 Mahfooj Kha, S/o Mahboob Khan, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Venkat Nagar, Police Station Venkat Nagar, Tehsil Jaitahri, District Annuppur, Madhya Pradesh ---- Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Korba (Police Chowki Rampur), Police Station Kotwali, District Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner:
Mr. Ashok Soni, Advocate.
For Respondent / State: Ms. Veena Nair, Deputy Advocate General. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 19/06/2020
1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.
2. The application for interim custody of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner seized for the commission of excise offence has been rejected by the trial Magistrate as well as by the revisional Court on the ground that bar under Section 47-D of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (for short, 'the Excise Act') is attracted, as intimation about the initiation of confiscation proceeding has not been given which is sought to be challenged in this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. 3.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the record with utmost circumspection.
4.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that since intimation about initiation of confiscation proceeding by
the District Magistrate has already been given to the trial Magistrate, therefore, Section 47-D of the Excise Act will come into play. However, the petitioner is at liberty move application for grant of interim custody of the vehicle, if not already applied, before the trial Magistrate which shall be considered within 45 days from today, in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the said application has already been rejected, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge that order in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma