1 2025:CGHC:48234-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 513 of 2025 Anil Kumar Verma S/o Late Shambhoo Prasad Verma Aged About 56 Years Occupation- Agricultural And Business Of Agriculture Machines R/o In Front Of Gayatri Temple, Bemetara, District - Bemetara C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate Bemetara, District - Bemetara C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Verma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.19 18:22:41 +0530 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direct there is to the respondent to produce entire concerned records before this Hon’ble Court for kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari direct there in to the respondent to release car XUV 300 No. C.G./25/m/1025 in supurdnama in the favour of the petitioner. 10.3 Further may kindly be please to issue a writ direction or order which deem fit in the favour of the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara (C.G.), as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara on 12.05.2025. By the said orders, the Courts below declined to release the petitioner’s vehicle, XUV 300 bearing registration No. CG/25/M/1025, seized in connection with Crime No. 29 of 2025 registered at Police Station Berla, District Bemetara, for the offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (for short, “Excise Act”). 4. The case of the petitioner is that he is the registered owner of the vehicle, which was purchased on loan from the Bank of India, Bemetara. It is contended that the vehicle has been illegally seized on the allegation that it was piloting a truck from which 4104 litres of Goa 3 whiskey were recovered. The petitioner submits that no contraband was found in his vehicle and that its continued detention at the police station is causing him irreparable loss and undue hardship. 5. Learned State counsel, opposing the prayer, has drawn attention to Section 47-A of the Excise Act. It is submitted that once the seizure relates to liquor exceeding fifty bulk litres, the jurisdiction to order release or confiscation of the vehicle vests exclusively with the Collector. The order of the learned Magistrate refusing supurdnama is, therefore, justified and the present petition is not maintainable. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the record. 7. The seizure in the present case pertains to 4104 litres of liquor, far in excess of the statutory threshold under Section 47-A(2) of the Excise Act. The statutory scheme is unambiguous that in such cases, the power to release or confiscate the seized vehicle is vested solely in the Collector, and the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. stands barred. 8. In view thereof, the learned Magistrate rightly declined to entertain the application for release of the vehicle, and the revisional Court committed no error in affirming such order. The hardship urged by the petitioner, though not without substance, cannot override the clear legislative intent nor create jurisdiction where none exists. The appropriate course for the petitioner is to approach the Collector, who alone is competent to consider his claim in accordance with law. 4 9. For these reasons, we find no ground to interfere in the present petition. 10. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Collector seeking release of the seized vehicle. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan