Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harshvardhan Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2015
CRR-142-2015
(HARSHVARDHAN PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
06-04-2015
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.S. Patel, panel lawyer for the respondent State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed Interlocutory Application No. 6419/2015 for taking additional documents on record.
Heard on the application.
For want of objection, additional documents are taken on record.
Case diary is available.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Learned panel lawyer accepts notice on behalf of the respondent State.
Since the case diary is available, matter is heard finally by consent.
This revision petition is directed against order dated 16.12.2014 passed by Special Additional Session Judge, Rewa, in crime No. 27/2014 registered by P.S.-Chaurhat, District-Rewa under Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985; whereby, learned Special Judge had declined to release Mahindra Scorpio vehicle seized in aforesaid case in the interim custody of applicant Harshvardhan Pandey.
As per prosecution case, accused persons Ratnesh and Jaheed Khan were caught transporting 1200 bottles of Rex Cough Syrup in a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle, which was without a registration number. Consequently, an offence under Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act was registered and both the accused persons were arrested. The Mahindra Scorpio vehicle along with contraband, was also seized.
It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that he is the owner of the seized Mahindra Scorpio vehicle. He had purchased the vehicle from Star Automobile, Satna on 22.10.2014. However, on 16.11.2014 he had entrusted vehicle to his driver Ratnesh Pandey to drop his Niece at a coaching centre. He was not aware of transportation of any contraband in the vehicle. The vehicle was seized by the police and offence has been registered but he has not been named as accused in the case. The vehicle is lying in unprotected condition in the police station and due to lack of maintenance of the vehicle, it would diminished in value considerably. Since he is owner of the vehicle, he is entitled to get it released in his interim custody.
Learned panel lawyer for the respondent State on the other hand opposed the application and has stated that at the time of the seizure, the vehicle was unregistered. Its engine and chasis numbers have not been recorded in the seizure memo. Thus, the vehicle seized from the possession of accused persons Ratnesh and Jahid Khan cannot be linked to the vehicle allegedly purchased by the applicant.
Learned trial Court has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that since the vehicle was being used for transportation of contraband, it was liable to confiscation and the proceedings for confiscation were in fact proposed; therefore, learned Special Judge did not find it appropriate to release the vehicle in interim custody of the applicant.
It has been held by this High Court in the case of Pandavrath Vs State of M.P., 2005 (2) ANJ MP 351 that notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it may be released in interim custody in appropriate cases. Thus, interim custody should not be denied to the owner of the vehicle, simply because it is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act.
A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dashrath Prasad Vs. State of M.P. 2007 (1) MPHT 520 has observed in paragraph No. 6 of the judgment as follows:
6. In case of sale/transfer of movable property the title of the property passes to transferee as soon as the price is paid and the possession of the vehicle is delivered to transferee. The motor vehicle being movable property its sale is covered under the provisions of Sales of Goods Act. The registration of the vehicle under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act is only for the purpose of fixing ostensible ownership for the liability of taxes etc. In the present case, since the sale letter has been issued and submitted to the Regional Transport Officer, it cannot be said that the applicant had no title of the vehicle. Since the applicant is a title holder of the vehicle, he is definitely entitled for its custody subject to other conditions imposed on him.
A perusal of the documents filed along with the application reveals that the applicant had purchased the Mahindra Scorpio vehicle from Star Automobiles, Satna on 22.10.2014 for a consideration of Rs. 10,58,879/-. The chasis number of the vehicle was MATTA25JXE21122 and the engine number was SJE4J15063. It was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited for the period from 21.10.2014 to 20.10.2015. As such, it is obvious that though the vehicle was yet to be registered in the name of the applicant, he is titleholder thereof. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderlal Ambalal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 (2) MPWN Note-I has held that the vehicle seized in connection with the criminal case should be returned to the owner or to the person from whose custody it is seized. In no case should it be allowed to rot in unprotected condition, thereby causing national loss.
In aforesaid view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant is entitled to have Mahindra Scorpio vehicle in question, released in his interim custody. So far as objection of learned panel lawyer for the respondent State regarding engine number and chasis number of the vehicle is concerned, appropriate directions in this regard may be issued and appropriate conditions may be imposed.
As such, learned trial Court was not justified in denying the interim custody of the vehicle to the applicant.
Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
It is directed that learned trial Court shall call for a report from concerned police station regarding engine and chasis number of the seized vehicle. In case the engine number and chasis number of the seized vehicle match with those of Mahindra Scorpio vehicle purchased by the applicant, the vehicle shall be released in interim custody of the applicant, till the disposal of the concerned criminal case on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10 lacs and one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for complying with the following terms and conditions:
1. He shall not alienate the vehicle or part with the possession thereof.
2. He shall not in any manner alter or modify the external appearance of the vehicle.
3. He shall produce the vehicle before the Court as and when directed.
4. Within 15 days of release of vehicle in interim custody, he shall produce registration certificate of the same before the trial Court.
It is further directed that before releasing the vehicle in interim custody of the applicant, the S.H.O. of concerning police station shall cause to be taken 18x12 inches photographs of the concerned vehicle from all four sides and also the photographs showing engine number and chasis number. Such photographs shall be filed in the trial Court to be kept along with the record.
Certified copy as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE