This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the court below in Crl.M.P.No.2852/14 in Crime No.36/2014 Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the petitioner in the petition was that petitioner is the registered owner of Bajaj diesel autorikshaw with registration No. KL-12 J 1066 and the vehicle was seized by the excise officials on 14.05.2014 at 10.30 a.m., alleging that the vehicle was used for transportation of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act. In fact, the petitioner has not involved in the crime and the driver of the vehicle was also not aware of the fact and the passenger was carrying the article without the knowledge of the petitioner or his agent namely the driver. Though the vehicle was seized, no proceedings have been initiated by the authorized officer. So, the petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicle before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta as Crl.M.P.No.2852/2014 in Crime No.36/2014 Crl.M.C.No.2945 of 2014 : 2 :
under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned magistrate dismissed the application by impugned Annexure A1 order. That is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.
3. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that initiation of proceedings is not a ground for denying the interim custody to the petitioner. So, according to him, the order passed is not proper. The Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the authorized officer has already issued a show cause notice as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated as provided under Section 67(C) of the Abkari Act.
4. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the court below was perfectly justified in dismissing the application.
5. Since the application was filed under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the remedy of the petitioner is to file a revision against that order and when a right of revision is provided, then, this court cannot invoke Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. So, on that ground, the application is not maintainable.
6. Considering the fact that the authorized officer Crl.M.C.No.2945 of 2014 : 3 :
already initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 67(C) of the Abkari Act, the petitioner can very well approach that authority for seeking for interim custody of the vehicle and if such an application is filed, that authority can consider and pass appropriate orders in that application.
With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge