Madhya Pradesh High Court
Wakeel Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 1 MCRC No.348/2016 (Wakeel Khan Vs. State of M.P.) Jabalpur, Dated : 08/02/2018 Shri Ahadullah Usmani, Counsel for the applicant. Shri Vivek Mishra, Public Prosecutor for the State. Heard finally.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 18-11-2015 passed by 9 th A.S.J., Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.269/2015 upholding the order dated 23-6-2015 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Jabalpur in Appeal No.178/B-121/14-15 thereby affirming the order dated 27-8-2014 passed by Collector, Jabalpur, by which the truck No. MP 09 HF 7723 was directed to be confiscated under Rule 5 of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rule, 2012.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the truck No. MP 09 HF 7723 was searched by the police on 7-3-2014 and it was found that the cattle were being transported illegally in a most cruel manner. Therefore, an offence under M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 was registered against Mohsin and Santosh who were arrested. It was also found that the truck was being plied in utter violation of the different provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, an offence under Sections 5/180, 66/192 of Motor Vehicles Act was registered against the applicant.
Proceedings were initiated for confiscation of the truck No. MP 09 HF 7723 under Rule 5 of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 and a show cause notice was issued to the applicant, which was suitably replied by the applicant.
An application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the Magistrate for release of the Truck on supurdaginama, which was allowed and the J.M.F.C., THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 MCRC No.348/2016 (Wakeel Khan Vs. State of M.P.) Narsingpur, directed for release of vehicle on supurdagi.
It is further submitted that in the summary proceedings for offence under Sections 5/180 and 66/192 of Motor Vehicles Act, the applicant pleaded guilty and was convicted and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-.
It is submitted that in the meanwhile the confiscation proceedings continued and the Collector, Jabalpur by order dated 27-8-2014, directed for confiscation of the truck no. MP 09 HF 7723. Being aggrieved by the order of the Collector, Jabalpur, the applicant filed an Appeal, which too was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur by order dated 23-6- 2015. The orders passed by the authorities were challenged by the applicant by filing a Criminal Revision before the Revisional Court, which too has suffered dismissal by order dated 18-11- 2015 passed by the 9th A.S.J., Jabalpur in Cr.R. No. 269/2015.
Challenging the orders of confiscation as well as the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Court, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that since the applicant was not made an accused for an offence under M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004, therefore, the truck No. MP 09 HF 7723, belonging to the applicant cannot be confiscated, as the conviction of the applicant is a sine qua non for the confiscation of the truck. To buttress his contentions, the Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Madhukar Rao reported in (2008) 13 SCC 624 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Raees Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2013 (5) MPHT 233.
Per contra, the application is opposed by the Counsel for the State. It is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 MCRC No.348/2016 (Wakeel Khan Vs. State of M.P.) proceedings for confiscation are independent to the Trial and are not based on the outcome of the Criminal Trial. Even if a person is not made an accused in a criminal case, then it does not mean that the vehicle involved in commission of offence cannot be confiscated. Even the conviction of the co-accused persons in a criminal trial is not a sine qua non of confiscation. It is further submitted that the judgments on which the applicant has placed reliance are distinguishable because they deal with a situation where the confiscation proceedings have not attained finality.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer and another Vs. G.V. Sudhakar Rao and others reported in AIR 1986 SC 328 has held as under :
14. We find that a later Division Bench consisting of Kondaiah, C. J. and Punnayya, J. in Mohd.
Yaseen v. Forest Range Officer, Flying Squad, Rayachoti, (1980) 1 Andh LT 8 approved of the view expressed by Jeewan Reddy, J. in P. K. Mohammad's case, (supra), and held that the Act contemplates two procedures, one for confiscation of goods forming the subject-matter of the offence by the Authorized Officer under sub-s. (2A) of S. 44 of the Act, and the other for trial of the person accused of the offence so committed under S. 20 or 29 of the Act. The learned Judges held that the Act provides for a special machinery for confiscation of illicitly felled timber or forest produce by the Authorized Officer under sub-s. (2A) of S. 44 enacted in the general public interest to suppress the mischief of ruthless exploitation of Government forests by illicit felling and removal of teak and other valuable forest produce. They further held that merely because there was an acquittal of the accused in the trial before the Magistrate due to paucity of evidence or otherwise did not THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 MCRC No.348/2016 (Wakeel Khan Vs. State of M.P.) necessarily entail in nullifying the order of confiscation of the seized timber or forest produce by the Authorized Officer under sub-s. (2A) of S. 44 of the Act based on his satisfaction that a forest offence had been committed in respect thereof. We affirm the view expressed by Jeewan Reddy, J. in P. K. Mohammad's case and by Kondaiah, C. J. and Punnayya, J. in Mohd. Yaseen's case.
Thus, it is clear that the vehicle can be confiscated where the Authorized Authority has reason to believe that an offence has been committed. The confiscation proceedings and the prosecution of the accused are two different things.
Thus, it is clear that merely because a criminal case is pending against the accused persons or the applicant was not made an accused in an offence under M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004, would not make the order of confiscation bad.
It is not the case of the applicant that the offence was committed by the co-accused persons, without his knowledge and permission. On the contrary, his basic contention is that since the trial against the co-accused persons is still pending, therefore, the truck could not have been confiscated, which cannot be accepted. Further, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that since the vehicle in question was released by the J.M.F.C. on Supurdagi, therefore, the said order is binding on the confiscating authority or the appellate authority or the Revisional Court. The submission is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. The order of the J.M.F.C. in releasing the vehicle on interim custody was merely an interlocutory order and, therefore, it loses its effect immediately after an order of confiscation is passed.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 MCRC No.348/2016 (Wakeel Khan Vs. State of M.P.) Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, where the applicant himself had admitted that he was guilty of committing offence under Sections 5/180 and 66/192 of Motor Vehicles Act coupled with the fact that the authorities have come to a finding of fact that the truck in question was involved in commission of offence and since the Counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any perversity in the findings given by the Revisional Court as well as the Authorities, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order 18-11-2015 passed by 9 th A.S.J., Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 269/2015, order dated 23-6-2015 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Jabalpur in Appeal No.178/B-121/14- 15 and the order dated 27-8-2014 passed by Collector, Jabalpur do not call for any interference and, hence, they are hereby affirmed.
This Court by order dated 12-5-2016 had granted interim protection by staying the operation of order of confiscation. The interim order dated 12-5-2016 is hereby vacated. The applicant is directed to immediately handover the truck to the authorities within a period of one month from today, otherwise, the authorities shall be free to take necessary action in this regard as per law.
With aforesaid observations, the application is dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.02.15 15:54:18 +05'30'