[2026:RJ-JP:18045] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4065/2018 Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Pratap Singh Jat, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 707-A, Ramkrishan Apartment, Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur, At Present R/o 5-A, RSEB Colony, D Block, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Director General of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. SHO Police Station Sodhala, Jaipur 4. Excise Commissioner Excise Department Rajasthan, Udaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/04/2026 1. By way of filing the instant petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to release the petitioner’s vehicle Scorpio Car bearing registration No.RJ-23- UA-6333 which was seized by the Investigation Officer in connection with FIR No.276/2015, registered with Police Station Sodala, District Jaipur (South), for the offences punishable under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short ‘Act of 1950’). 2. It has been averred in the instant petition that charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-petitioner for the abovestated [2026:RJ-JP:18045] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4065/2018] offences before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and after trial he was acquitted from all the charges vide judgment dated 11.09.2017. The aforesaid judgment was not assailed by the State before any Appellate Court, hence, the judgment dated 11.09.2017 has attained finality. 3. It has been averred in the instant petition that no orders have been passed for release of the seized subject vehicle, hence, appropriate directions be issued to the respondents for release of the aforesaid subject vehicle and appropriate compensation be given to the petitioner for being falsely implicated in the case. 4. So far as the prayer with regard to grants of compensation is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate forum of law for redressal of such grievance. But so far as the first prayer with regard to release of the subject vehicle is concerned, there is a provision under Section 452 Cr.P.C. for getting custody of the seized vehicle since the trial has already been concluded against the petitioner. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is at liberty to submit an application under Section 452 Cr.P.C. before the Concerned Court and it is expected from the Concerned Court to pass orders, strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the provisions contained under Section 69 of the Act of 1950. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay applications and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Shivam/52