Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dharmendra Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2021

Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh

Bench: Satyendra Kumar Singh

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR

              M.Cr.C. NO. 37276/2021
 (Dharmendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and another)

Jabalpur, dated 11/08/2021


      This matter is heard through Video-Conferencing.
      Shri Adarsh Heera, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Yogendra Das Yadav, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

With consent, heard finally.

This petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of order dated 13/07/2021 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Panna, Distt. Panna (MP) in Criminal Revision No.29/2021 whereby the order dated 09/06/2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panna in M.J.C. No.162/2021 rejecting an application filed by the applicant under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. has been affirmed. Inter-alia, a prayer is made to release the vehicle i.e. Bolero Pickup bearing registration No.M.P. 19 GA 4013 belonging to the applicant on 'Supurdginama'.

2. In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that on 06/05/2021 Police of Police Station, Ajaygarh, Distt. Panna found the vehicle i.e. Bolero Pickup bearing registration No.M.P.19 GA 4013 transporting 1125 bulk ltr. illegal liquor and seized the aforesaid vehicle along with liquor from the possession of accused-Brijesh Aadiwasi and Crime No.187/2021 was registered against Brijesh Aadiwasi and other co-accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915.

3. The applicant, being registered owner of the seized vehicle, filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for releasing of the seized vehicle on 'Supurdginama' which was rejected by the impugned order dated 09/06/2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The applicant thereafter filed criminal revision before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Panna which was also rejected vide impugned order dated 13/07/2021, hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the registered owner of the seized vehicle i.e. Bolero Pickup bearing registration No.M.P.19 GA 4013 and he filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for releasing the vehicle on 'Supurdginama' which was rejected vide impugned order dated 09/06/2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate only on the ground that the procedure for confiscation of the seized vehicle is proposed. In the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panna, no notice about initiation of confiscation proceeding of the seized vehicle was received by the applicant till passing of the impugned order dated 09/06/2021, hence, bar under Section 47D of the M.P. Excise Act was not attracted, therefore, both the Courts below, while passing the impugned orders, have failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested with him and committed grave error of law in holding that the aforesaid vehicle cannot be given on 'Supurdginama'. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, (2002) 10 SCC 290 and Uma 3 Shankar Usrete Vs. State of M.P., (2009) 2 MPLJ 11. In these premises, prayer is made to set aside the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and to give the vehicle on 'Supurdginama'.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that information about initiation of confiscation proceeding by the authority was received during hearing of revision on 02/07/2021, therefore, the seized vehicle cannot be released on 'Supurdginama'.

5. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is an admitted fact that while passing the impugned order dated 09/06/2021, information regarding initiation of confiscation proceeding was not received in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panna, therefore, the provisions of Section 47D of the M.P. Excise Act were not attracted in the matter. In this regard, Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pratik Vs. State of M.P., 2010(1) MPLJ (Cri. 205, has held that application for release of vehicle rejected on the ground that liquor seized from the vehicle was more than 50 bulk ltr and the jurisdiction to pass an order of disposal of such property was barred under M.P. Excise Act. Bar under Section 47-D of the Act was not attracted unless intimation was received by the Court from the Collector.

7. In the case of Suresh Vs. State of M.P., 2003 (1) MPLJ 638, it is held that when intimation is not sent to the criminal Court about initiation of confiscation proceedings by 4 the Collector, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain application of owner of the vehicle to pass appropriate order.

8. As per revisional Court's order, notice with regard to initiation of confiscation proceeding was received on 02/07/2021 which is much after passing of the impugned order passed by the trial Court i.e. the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panna.

9. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the law laid down in the cases of Pratik Parik (supra) and Suresh (supra), the present petition deserves to be allowed.

10. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13/07/2021 passed by 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Panna, Distt. Panna (MP) in Criminal Revision No.29/2021 and the impugned order dated 09/06/2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panna in M.J.C. No.162/2021 are hereby set aside. It is directed that vehicle i.e. Bolero Pickup bearing registration No.M.P.19 GA 4013 seized in connection with Crime No.187/2021 be given to the applicant on 'Supurdginama' subject to production of original registration certificate and insurance certificate on the following terms and conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs.eight lakh) with one solvant surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on an 5 undertaking to produce the said vehicle before the trial Court as and when required.

(ii) The applicant shall get the vehicle photographed showing registration number as well as the chassis number of the vehicle. Such photographs shall be taken in presence of the responsible officer, who will be deputed by the trial Court and to be kept in the file of the case.

(iii) 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 them before the Court which would be with full residential proof of the surety and the person identifying them.

(iv) The applicant shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and shall not lease it to anyone and not make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable.

(v) The applicant will not allow the vehicle to be used in any anti-social activities.

(vi) In the event of confiscation order by the competent authority or Collector, the 6 applicant shall keep the vehicle present positively for confiscation.

(vii) The applicant is also directed to produce Bank Guarantee of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs.eight lakh only) for two years before the concerned Court for the aforesaid purpose.

10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for necessary compliance.

(Satyendra Kumar Singh) Judge ts TULSA SINGH 2021.08.12 17:04:11 +05'30'