Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Firdos Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 24 April, 2014
M.Cr.C.No.1760 of 2014
1
Smt. Firdos Khan Vs State of M.P.
24 / 4 / 2 0 1 4
Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Alok Tapikar, Panel Lawyer for the State.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties,
matter is heard finally.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is
directed against the order dated 05 /12 / 2 013 passed in
Criminal Case No.1651 / 2013 by learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class Lakhnadon, District Seoni
dismissing an application filed by the applicant under the
provisions of Section 451 / 457 of Cr.P.C. for handing over
the possession and custody of truck (Ashok Leland) concern
bearing registration number MP 20 GA 5386.
As per the prosecution story, on 16 /8 / 2 013 at 18.15
hour on an information the truck concern was checked, two
drums having filled with kerosene oil at about 300 litres
were found and on checking the diesel tank, 50 litres diesel
mixed with kerosene oil were found. After taking samples,
the truck concern has been seized and offence under S.S.
3X7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has been
registered against the driver and the applicant and they
were charge sheeted. The application filed by the applicant
for handing over the possession and custody of truck was
rejected by learned Judicial Magistrate vide impugned
order, hence this application.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has
contended that learned Judicial Magistrate while passing
the impugned order has failed to exercise its jurisdiction
M.Cr.C.No.1760 of 2014
2
vested with him and committed grave error of law in holding
that the aforesaid property will require at the time of trial.
It is further submitted that if the seized vehicle be kept for a
long time in open space at the police station, it will be
damaged by vagaries of weather.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State
opposed the application on the ground that the vehicle is subjected for confiscation and seized for the offence, which is serious in nature.
It is nowhere disputed in the impugned order that the applicant is not the registered owner of the vehicle concern and that the same was not claimed by any other person also.
Provisions of Sections 451 & 457 of Criminal Procedure Code provides power to the Court to pass an appropriate order for interim custody and for disposal of seized property pending trial where the property is subjected to speedy and natural decay and looking to the other circumstances, to the owner of the property.
No fruitful purpose will be served by retaining the vehicle during pendency of the trial or during confiscation proceedings, rather it will diminish the value of th said vehicle, when the petitioner is ready to produce the vehicle as and when called by above mentioned authorities, then certainly the vehicle concerned can be given in the interim custody of the registered owner. It is futile to lay the vehicle idle in the Police Station or any other unsecured place when the vehicle concern not kept in the secured place i.e. garage M.Cr.C.No.1760 of 2014 3 there is every possibility of it being damaged by vagaries of weather.
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 order dated 05/12 / 2 013 is hereby quashed. It is directed that seized truck (Ashok Leland) bearing registration number MP 20 GA 5386 shall be delivered to the applicant on Supurdginama subject to producing the original registration certificate and permit and further on satisfying the following conditions:-
(i) That, the applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.8,00,000 / - (Rupees Eight Lacs 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 as well as the chassis number. Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer, M.Cr.C.No.1760 of 2014 4 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 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 present positively for confiscation.
With the aforesaid, this application stands allowed. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial Court / t he authority concerned for necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE SJ/-