Madhya Pradesh High Court
Guniram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2016
MCRC-19325-2015
(GUNIRAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
28-04-2016
Shri Ghanshayam Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Akhilesh Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard finally.
This Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 09.10.2015, passed in Criminal Revision No.96/2015, by learned First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat arising out of order dated 16/09/2015, passed in Criminal Case No.229/15, by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balaghat dismissing an application filed by the applicant for handing over the possession and custody of vehicle bearing registration Number MH 35 K 3384.
As per the prosecution story, on 27/08/2015 the alleged vehicle used for illegal transporting 12 cattle for slaughtering was seized by the Police and an offence under Sections 4, 6, 6-Kh & 9 of Madhya Pradesh Vansh Pratished Adhiniyam, 2004 and Section 11-D of Pashu Krurta Niwaran Adhiniyam, 1960 has been registered. An application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. been filed by the applicant for handing over the possession and custody of the vehicle in question, which was rejected by Judicial Magistrate, First Class vide order dated 16/09/2015 and being aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed an application before the I Additional Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed vide order dated 09/10/2015, hence, this application.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that learned Courts below have erred in law in not giving supurdginama of the vehicle in question. Learned Courts below also failed to see that the applicant is a registered owner of the vehicle in question. It is further submitted that if the seized vehicle is kept for a long time in open space, it will be damaged by vagaries of weather. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the revision on the ground that the vehicle is seized for the offence, which is serious in nature.
Provisions of Section 457 of Criminal Procedure Code provides power to the Court to pass an order of interim custody and disposal of property pending trial where the property is subjected to speedy and natural decay and looking to the other circumstances, the property can be handed over to the owner.
There is no bar that the property cannot be released looking to the seriousness of the offence.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (1999) 5 SCC 670 held that interim custody of the seized or to be confiscated vehicle cannot be denied to a person who is registered owner, on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the Act. Keeping in view above facts and circumstances of the case, and further in the light of the decision in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase (supra), the impugned orders dated 09/10/2015 and order dated 16/09/2015 are hereby quashed. It is directed that seized vehicle bearing registration Number MH 35 K 3384 shall be delivered to the applicant on Supurdginama subject to producing the original registration certificate, permit and original insurance certificate of the vehicle in question, further on satisfying the following conditions:-
(i) That, the applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lac Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on an undertaking to produce the said vehicle before the trial Court as and when required.
(ii) That, the applicant shall got the vehicle photographed showing the registration number. Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer, who will be deputed by the trial Court and to be kept in the file of the case.
(iii) That, the personal bond of the applicant as well as surety shall carry the photographs of both and the bond of surety shall further carry the photograph of person identifying him before the Court which would be with full residential proof of the surety and the person identifying him.
(iv) The applicant shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and not to lease it to any one and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make identifiable.
(v) The applicant will not allow the vehicle in question to be used for any anti-social activities.
(vi) In the event of confiscation order by the Court competent, the applicant shall keep the vehicle in question present positively for confiscation.
With the aforesaid, this application stands allowed. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial Court concerned for necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE