[2026:RJ-JP:26840] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2925/2023 URN: CRLMP / 5526U / 2023 Ravi Son of Shivsingh, Resident of Police Line Prerna Nagar, Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur (Raj). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dushyant Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr.Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/07/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 05.04.2023 passed by Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bayana, District Bharatpur by which the application submitted by the petitioner seeking supurdagi of trolley in question has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trolley of the petitioner was seized by the Police in connection with the impugned F.I.R. No.525/2021 registered at the Police Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 307 & 379 IPC, Sections 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act, Section 3 of the PDPP Act, Section 3 & 25 of the Arms Act, Sections 16 & 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act & Sections 29 & 51 of the Rajasthan Wild Life Protection Act. [2026:RJ-JP:26840] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2925/2023] 3. Counsel submits that the aforesaid trolley in question are required for agricultural purposes, but the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the Court below, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that in the cases where the offence punishable under the Rajasthan Excise Act is involved, there is a statutory bar under the Rajasthan Excise Act for releasing of such seized vehicle by the Judicial Magistrate or the Judicial Court, hence, the Court below has not committed any error in rejecting the application on a technical count of lack of jurisdiction. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Section 69(2B) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 states that whenever any article/vehicle is seized by the concerned authority, the District Excise Officer alone has the jurisdiction to decide the application seeking delivery/disposal of such property and no Court, Tribunal or any other Authority has the jurisdiction to entertain such application. 7. Considering the argument put forward by learned Public Prosecutor and looking to the fact that there is a statutory bar on the jurisdiction of the Judicial Courts to entertain the supurdagi applications of the vehicle seized under the Rajasthan Excise Act. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has not committed any error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, hence this Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the Court below, which warrants any interference of this Court. [2026:RJ-JP:26840] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2925/2023] 9. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the concerned Authority seeking supurdagi of the subject vehicle. In case, such application is submitted by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, it is expected from the said Authority to decide the same in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/49