Allowed

Vikram Goswami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jan 2021CRMP/21/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside the impugned orders rejecting an application for interim custody of a vehicle seized in an excise cases. The Court directed remittal to the Collector to consider the application in light of the Supreme Court decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat within 15 days. The Court held that keeping seized vehic

What did the court decide?

Order of Collector and Revisional Court set aside; matter remitted to Collector, Korba, for fresh disposal within 15 days considering Supreme Court guidelines on vehicle custody.

Vikram Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 21 of 2021

¶5

Vikram Goswami S/o Shri Gore Lal Goswami Aged About 30 Years R/o Kothari Naka, (Nawalpur) Police Station Urga Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Urga District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner :- Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Advocate.
For State/Respondent :- Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

¶12

13/01/2021

¶13

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the vehicle of the petitioner
was found involved in commission of the
excise offence and FIR has been registered
against Rajpuri Goswami. The confiscation
proceeding has already been initiated
against the vehicle in question.

¶14

¶15

The petitioner made an application for grant of interim custody of the vehicle in question before the concerned Collector and the concerned Collector has rejected the application on 09.11.2020, which has been affirmed by the Revisional Court, against which the instant petition under Section 482 of the CRPC has been preferred by the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the Courts below concurrently erred in not adverting the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat1 and rejected the application of the

¶17

petitioner.

¶18

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned order and oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions

¶20

1 2002(10)SCC 283

¶21

¶22

herein-above and went through the records
with utmost circumspection.

¶23

The learned Collector has rejected the application of the petitioner holding that the quantity of the liquor seized from the said vehicle is on the higher side. The order of the concerned Collector has been affirmed by the Revisional Court without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) in which, with regard to grant of custody of the vehicle, it has been held as under:-

¶24

“15. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, a number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to their owners or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the court at any point of time.

¶25

16.However, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners submitted that this
question of handing over the vehicle to
the person from whom it is seized or to
its true owner is always a matter of

¶26

¶27

litigation and a lot of arguments are
advanced by the persons concerned.

¶28

17.In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of the applications for return of such vehicles.

¶29

18.In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.”

¶30

In view of that the order passed by the learned Collector and the Revisional Court (First Additional Sessions Judge, Korba) are hereby set aside and matter is remitted to the Collector, Korba, to consider it afresh for disposal of the application in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble

¶31

5 Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶32

8. With the aforesaid observation/direction,

¶33

the instant petition stands finally disposed

¶34

of.

¶35

Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge

¶36

Ankit

Vikram Goswami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Goswami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilbasiya and Others Vs Kendali and Others

Amrit Singh Vs Kripal Singh and Others

Suraj Bai and Others Vs Krishna Kumar

State Vs Ram Krishna Sharma

Beerbal Das Vs Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. and Ano.

Geeta Devi and Another Vs Sanjay Jadwani