Radico Khaitan Ltd. vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

P.K. Jaiswal, J.—They are heard.By this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner is praying for release of 4500 bulk litres foreign liquor, which was seized by the respondent on 19.1.2012.

It is well settled that criminal Court have no jurisdiction to pass any order for interim custody or confiscation of goods and vehicle if intimation regarding confiscation proceedings given to it by Collector.

Sections 47A to 47-Dhave been inserted by the Amendment Act of 2000. Section 47-A provides for confiscation of seized intoxicants and articles etc. in the case of quantity of liquor exceeding fifty bulk litres by the Collector. It is also provided in this section that he may during the pendency of the proceedings for such confiscation also pass an order of interim nature for the custody, disposal etc. of the confiscated intoxicants and articles etc. as may appear to him to be necessary in the circumstances of the case.Sub-section (3) of section 47-A envisages (a) an intimation about intimation of proceedings for confiscation of seized intoxicants and articles etc., to the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made, (b) a notice in writing to the person concerned, (c) affording an opportunity to such person of making a representation against proposed confiscation and (d) giving of hearing to him.

It is submitted that though proceedings has been initiated by the District Magistrate, Dewas, but no order in respect of release of the goods has been passed nor any notice has been issued to the petitioner and later on final order was passed.

As per Section 47B of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 the order is appealable and in view of the Full Bench decision of Principal Seat of this Court passed in the matter of Shrish Agrawal v/s State of M.P., reported in 2003(2) MPLJ 189, the petitioner may challenge the order by filing an appeal along with application for release of the goods. The proviso to Sub-section 47B of the Act enables the Appellate Authority to pass order of interim nature for custody and disposal etc., of the confiscated articles even after the order of confiscation passed by the Collector. As per record of the District Magistrate before initiating proceedings intimation was given to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas vide communication No. 788-85/ Reader/2012 dated 15.5.2012 for confiscation of seized goods and vehicle and, therefore, by reasons of the provision of Section 47A(2) the District Magistrate was only competent to pass an interim order for custody, disposal etc.

In the case in hand, final order has been passed by the District Magistrate vide order dated 28.6.2012 in Case No. 24/B98(Ba)/2011-12.

In view of of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Court below has not committed any legal error in passing the impugned order dated 9.3.2012. Against the said order this petition was filed on 3.4.2012 and during pendency of this petition goods was confiscated by passing final order dated 28.6.2012. Now, no relief can be granted in this petition. For the above mentioned reasons the petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to challenge the order dated 28.6.2012 of District Magistrate by filing appeal along with appropriate application before the Appellate Authority u/s 47B of M.P. Excise Act, 1915.