Oral Judgment:

1. Issue notice to the Respondents. The learned APP waives service of notice for Respondents/State. By consent of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner has approached this court for quashment of the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad, thereby rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 8.10.2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Kallam, in Criminal M.A. No. 116 of 2025.

3. By the aforesaid two orders, the application filed by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle seized in Crime No. 292 of 2025, registered with Excise Police Station, Dist. Dharashiv under Section 65 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, wherein, illicit liquor amounting to Rs. 25,000/- was seized by the Excise Department came to be rejected.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not even an accused in the aforesaid crime. The aforesaid crime is registered against one Ramvilas Yadav, the friend of the petitioner, who had requested the petitioner to use his vehicle, as he was having some private work of taking his parents to a distant place. The petitioner had, therefore, handed over the said vehicle without knowing that the said accused Ramvilas Yadav would use the vehicle to carry the illicit liquor. After realizing that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized in the aforesaid Crime No. 292 of 2025 registered on 26.8.2025, by Excise Department, the petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kallam, vide order dated 8.10.2025, had rejected the said application, only on the ground that the said vehicle was used for transport of illicit liquor. The petitioner has, therefore, filed a  revision before the Sessions Court, which was registered as Criminal Revision No., 6 of 2025. However, the learned Revisional Court, vide its judgment dated 13.11.2025 was pleased to reject the said revision, filed by the petitioner herein, on the ground that as per the Provision to Section 99 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, the petitioner shall be able to show that he had exercised due care in preventing the commission of crime and only if the such condition is satisfied that the owner can be handed over the possession of the vehicle.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. The vehicle is owned by him. There are documents to show that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle hypothecated to Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company. The petitioner is facing difficulty in his day to day activities because of the vehicle being seized by the Department in the crime, as mentioned hereinabove.

6. The learned APP on the other hand submits that the impugned orders are just and proper and liable to be maintained. The vehicle was found transporting illicit liquor and there is every likelihood that the vehicle if released, may again be used for transporting illicit liquor.

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for State. The impugned order dated 08.10.2025 shows that the learned J.M.F.C. Kallam has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No.156/1993 in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Garrepally Nageswarorao, which has no application in facts of present case, which held that in the absence of any license to transport alcohol the vehicle is liable to be confiscated. The impugned order dated 13.11.2025 shows that the learned Revisional Court relied upon Sections 98 and 99 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and held that the petitioner has failed to show that he had exercised due care to prevent the commission of offence. The learned Revisional Court further relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Garrepally Nageswarrao (cited supra) to hold that the petitioner was not having license to transport alcohol and rejected the revision.

8. The Honourable Supreme Court in a recent judgment pertaining to release of vehicle in an NDPS case i.e. in the matter of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241 was pleased to observe in paragraph nos. 33 and 34, as under :-

                   “33. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. (i) Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered.(ii) Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. (iii)Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. (iv)Fourthly, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13370/2024 Page 28 of 31 the owner’s knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.

                   34. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated.

9. Thus  applying  the  principles  as  laid  down  in  the judgment of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam (supra), four scenarios shall be considered while deciding an application under Sections 451 or 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which are as under :

                   (i) where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband is recovered.

                   (ii) where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner.

                   (iii) where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle.

                   (iv) where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third- party occupant of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner’s knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.

In the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and on some conditions.

10. In present case, the petitioner is not even an accused in the aforesaid crime. The aforesaid crime is registered against one  Ramvilas  Yadav,  the  friend  of  the  petitioner,  who  had requested the petitioner to use his vehicle, as he was having some private work of taking his parents to a distant place. The petitioner had, therefore, handed over the said vehicle without knowing that the said accused Ramvilas Yadav would use the vehicle to carry the illicit liquor. Thus, the present case falls under the fourth scenario as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam (cited supra).

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283, has given guidelines and directions to subordinate Courts to see that the vehicles are not kept idle and the proceedings filed for interim custody is decided immediately. The observations made in the case of General Insurance Council and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 768 can be found at paragraph no. 14 which is as follows :

                   14.   It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only do they occupy substantial space in the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road.

12. In the absence of any specific bar under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act for return of seized vehicle used for transporting liquor in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. However the power has to be exercised depending upon facts of each case.

13. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions and particularly, the fact that the petitioner is not even an accused in the said crime and that the petitioner is not involved in any other offence under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, a case is made out for interference by this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders and directing handing over possession of the vehicle to the petitioner, however, on certain conditions. Hence, the following order :-

ORDER

[i] The impugned orders dated 08.10.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class below Exh.1 in Cri. M.A. No. 116 of 2025 and the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kallam, in Revision Petition No. 6 of 2025  are hereby quashed and set aside;

[ii] The vehicle of the petitioner be released in his favour upon executing a P.R. Bond of the Rs. 50,000/- before the learned trial Court that he would pay the value of the vehicle if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated upon conclusions of trial.

[iii] The necessary photographs shall be taken duly authenticated and certified and a detailed panchanama shall be prepared before such release.

[iv] The petitioner shall not create third party interest.

[v] Petitioner shall pay all monthly installments of the vehicle and clear the bank dues.

[vi] The vehicle shall be brought for inspection as and when called by the Court.

[vii] The petitioner shall furnish indemnity bond in terms of above as also for payment of cost of vehicle.

[viii] The applicant shall make the vehicle available as and when required and called for, by the prosecution i.e. Excise Department during the trial.

[ix] The applicant shall not transfer the ownership of the vehicle without the permission of the trial court.

[x] With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.