This single-judge order set aside the Collector's rejection of interim custody for a seized vehicle under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court directed the Collector to reconsider the application within 45 days.
Impugned order set aside; Collector directed to grant interim custody or pass order within 45 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 390 of 2020
Shiv Kumar Kurre S/o Shri Gokul Kumar Kurre, Aged
about 22 years, R/o Laxmipur, Police Station
Kotwali, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Raigarh, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Superintendent of Police Raigarh, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
3. Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Raigarh, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
For Petitioner :-Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate
For State:-Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
08/04/2021
1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken up through video conferencing.
2. The petitioner herein filed an application for interim custody of his vehicle seized for
commission of offence under Section 34(2) and
59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, which
2
has been rejected by the Collector, Raigarh vide
impugned order dated 28/07/2020, against which
this writ petition has been preferred by him.
3.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered their submissions and gone through the
record with utmost circumspection.
4. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down the following principle of law for releasing the seized vehicle on interim custody in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat 1, which states as under :-
“15.Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia,
appearing for the State of Gujarat further
submitted that at present in the police
station premises, 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 its owner or to the
person from whom the said vehicles are seized
by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee
for the return of the said vehicles if
required by the Court at any point of time.
16. However, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners submitted that this
question of handing over vehicles to the
person from whom it is seized or to its true
owner is always a matter of litigation and a
lot of arguments are advanced by the
concerned persons.
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
1 (2002) 10 SCC 283
3
hearing of applications for return of such
vehicles.
18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed
by the accused, owner, or the insurance
company or by 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 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 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.”
5. In view of the aforesaid binding principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai (supra), the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Collector, Raigarh is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of interim custody of the vehicle as noticed herein-above and pass an order within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Harneet
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting interim custody of seized vehicle should be set aside in light of Supreme Court principles on vehicle retention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of GujaratFollowed¶22
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shiv Kumar Kurre
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court