Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 July, 2024
1 MCRC-23304-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 9 th OF JULY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23304 of 2022
(SANJAY
Vs
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Appearance:
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER - SHRI AKHILESH SAXENA
COUNSEL FOR STATE - SHRI RAJESH JOSHI, G.A.
ORDER
This is a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 5.2.2022 passed by I ASJ, Rajgarh, district Rajgarh in Cr.Revision No. 01/2021 affirming the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by JMFC, Jeerapur, district Rajgarh in cr.case No. 641/2021 whereby the trial court dated has rejected the application for giving the seized vehicle on interim supurdginama.
2 . As per prosecution story, on 5.12.2021 secret information was received at police station regarding transportation of illicit Urea fertilizer.
Thereafter Bolero pickup vehicle Model No. 2021 Engine No. TNM4G89417 and Chasis No. MAIZN2TNKM5G50187 was intercepted and Urea was seized. On asking about the license, the driver denied. Accordingly, case was registered under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and section 7/8 of Fertilizer (Control) Act, 1985. After enquiry it was found that alleged pick up vehicle is owned by the present applicant, hence respondent initiated confiscation proceeding of the vehicle. The applicant filed an application under section 451 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for giving the seized vehicle on interim Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA KOUSHAL Signing time: 10-07-2024 10:45:31 2 MCRC-23304-2022 supurdginama. The said application was dismissed on the ground that confiscation proceedings were initiated. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred a revision before the I ASJ, Rajgarh which was dismissed affirming the order passed by the trial court. Hence this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.
3. Counsel for the applicant relying on the order dated 4.10.2023 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No. 26528/2023 (Suresh Vs. State of M.P.) and the order dated 27.11.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 11251/2019 (Bapulal Vs. State of M.P.) submits that trial court has wrongly rejected the said application in view of provisions of section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act. It is submitted that when the applicant had applied for interim custody of the vehicle on 9.12.2021, no confiscation proceedings were initiated. During pendency of the application, intimation regarding initiation of confiscation proceedings was received by the trial court vide letter NO.7864 dated 16.12.2021 of the Collector, Rajgarh. It is further submitted that if the vehicle is not given on interim custody, the applicant will suffer irreparable loss and also the vehicle is lying in open space in police station and its condition is getting deteriorated. Under such circumstances, impugned orders are liable to be set aside and prayer is made for releasing the vehicle on interim supurdginama, for which applicant is ready to furnish adequate surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.
4. Counsel for the State supports the order impugned and submits that applicant is accused for the offence punishable under sections 7/8 of Fertilizer (Control) Act and section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The vehicle in question was found to be involved in commission of the offence.
5. After hearing learned counsel for parties, it is apposite to reproduce the provision of section 6E of the Act.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA KOUSHAL Signing time: 10-07-2024 10:45:313 MCRC-23304-2022 Section 6E- Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases - Whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, or any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity is seized pending confiscation under section 6A, the Collector, or, as the case may be, shall have, and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, shall not have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.
6. Upon perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that on the date of application for custody of the vehicle, the confiscation proceedings should be pending before the competent authority. In the present case admittedly on the date of application, the confiscation proceedings were not initiated and same were not pending, and therefore the bar under section 6E of the Act would not apply.
7. The bar as contained in section 47-D of M.P. Excise Act is similar to the bar as contained in section 6E of Essential Commodities Act.
8 . In view of aforesaid settled position of law, the trial court was not justified while rejecting the application of Superdagi on the ground of initiation of confiscation proceedings. The aforesaid finding is perverse. Even the Revisional Court also committed error while rejecting the application and affirming the order passed by the Magistrate. In view of this, the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the trial court and the Revisional Court order dated 5.02.2022 is set aside. The application filed by the applicant under section 451 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The vehicle in question shall be released subject to Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA KOUSHAL Signing time: 10-07-2024 10:45:31 4 MCRC-23304-2022 following conditions:-
( i ) The applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.Four Lacs only) with two solvent sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court on an undertaking to produce the said vehicle before the trial Court as and when directed by the court during trial.
(ii) The applicant shall get the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chasis number of the vehicle. Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer, who will be deputed by the trial curt and to be kept in the file of the case.
(iii) 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.
(iv) In the event of confiscation order by the competent authority or Collector, the applicant shall keep the vehicle present positively for confiscation.
With the aforesaid, the M.Cr.C. is allowed and disposed off.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE MK Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA KOUSHAL Signing time: 10-07-2024 10:45:31