Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR 5694/2018
(Satish Dhakad vs. State of M.P. )
Gwalior, Dated 20/12/2018
Shri SS Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Sangeeta Pachouri, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/ State.
This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC being aggrieved by order dated 10.08.2018 passed by Special Judge, M.P.D.V.P.K. Act, Shivpuri, whereby he has refused to hand over custody of motorcycle bearing No.M.P.08 MR4381 on the ground that such motorcycle was used for the purpose of committing dacoity/theft.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that motorcycle belongs to the present applicant who has not been identified in the T.I.P. and has also been enlarged on bail. Even otherwise, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the vehicle in custody and allowed it to deteriorate. Applicant, seeks parity with the case of Jagdish Vs. State of M.P. (CRR 5063/2018). Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in which the Supreme Court has held as under:-
''8. The question of proper custody of the seized article is raised in number of matters. In Smt. Basawa Kom Dyanmangouda Patil vs. State of Mysore and Another [1977] 4 SCC 358, this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court observed as under-
"4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR 5694/2018 (Satish Dhakad vs. State of M.P. ) the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance."
9. The Court further observed that where the property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie defence made out that the State or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, the Magistrate may, in an appropriate case, where the ends of justice so require, order payment of the value of the property.
10. To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest.'' 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR 5694/2018 (Satish Dhakad vs. State of M.P. ) Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the motorcycle in question was used in dacoity and theft and he opposes the revision.
Considering the allegations, as well as the involvement of the motorcycle in the commission of offence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the motorcycle in question, can be released in favour of the applicant on the following terms and conditions:-
(1) That, the applicant shall produce all the relevant documents before the trial Court to prove that he is the registered owner of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP 08 MD/8169;
(2) That, the applicant shall furnish an undertaking before the trial Court to the effect that he shall not change the conditions, colour and nature of the motorcycle;
(3) That, the applicant shall produce the motorcycle as and when directed by the trial Court and (ii) that, the applicant shall produce the motorcycle before the trial Court, in case if it is directed to be confiscated at the end of trial (iii) that, the applicant shall not dispute his ownership over the motorcycle in question.
Upon furnishing the undertaking as mentioned above and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the interim custody of the motorcycle in question be handed over to the applicant.
With the aforesaid observation, this revision succeeds and is hereby Allowed.
CC as per rules.
(Vivek Agarwal)
mani Judge
SUBASRI
Digitally signed by SUBASRI MANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=a649f7a3438773bf212183510475 MANI 3746385b9875063a47872ca437af06fff8ef, 2.5.4.45=032100B5FBD6FFB92D489F37879 CB5EB91D2812611546B7D1562BEE45CEC D006142951, cn=SUBASRI MANI Date: 2018.12.21 10:45:34 +05'30'