Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriniwas Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 1 March, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 21295/2017
Shri Niwas Dubey vs. State of MP
Gwalior, Dtd. 01/03/2018
Shri Sudeep Pratap Verma, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Devendra Chaubey, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 26/10/2017 passed by ASJ, Karera, District Shivpuri in Criminal Revision No.143/2017 by which the order dated 20/09/2017 passed by JMFC, Karera, District Shivpuri in POR No.73/2011 has been affirmed.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the tractor of the applicant bearing Engine No.4100EL73D631311F16 and Chassis No.GZUDT 637130S3 was found illegally transporting the sand and accordingly, the tractor was seized and offence under Sections 2/12, 18, 27, 29, 39(d), 50 and 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act was registered. The investigation is still pending and the applicant filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC for release of tractor on Supurdignama. The Magistrate by order dated 20/09/2017 rejected the application. The copy of the order of the Magistrate has not been placed on record. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20/09/2017, passed by JMFC, Karera, District Shivpuri, the applicant filed a criminal revision which has been dismissed by order dated 26/10/2017 passed in Criminal Revision No.143/2017.
Challenging the orders passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the guilt of the applicant has not been established in the trial and until 2 and unless a person is held guilty for committing the offence, the vehicle cannot be confiscated. It is further submitted that in fact, the applicant has been falsely implicated and his tractor was not transporting the sand illegally.
Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that illegal excavation of sand in the area is a menace not only to law and order situation but is a threat to the environment and marine life. Several tractors were seized which were illegally transporting the sand. The applicant was transporting the sand illegally without making payment of royalty and if the matter is not dealt with firmly, then it would not only deteriorate the law and order situation of the locality, but would also adversely affect the environment and marine life of the locality.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
So far as the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the vehicle cannot be confiscated until and unless the applicant is convicted in the trial is concerned, the said submission has no substance being misconceived and is accordingly rejected.
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 3 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 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.'' The Supreme Court in the case of State of MP and Others vs. Smt.Kallo Bai, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 502 has held as under:-
''22. In view of the forgoing discussions, it is apparent that Section 15 gives independent power to the authority concerned to confiscate the articles, as mentioned there-under, even before the guilt is completely established. This power can be exercised by the officer concerned if he is satisfied that the said objects were utilized during the commission of a forest offence. A protection is provided for the owners of the vehicles/ articles, if they are able to prove that they took all reasonable care and precautions as envisaged under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam and the said offence was committed without their knowledge or connivance.
23. Criminal prosecution is distinct from confiscation proceedings. The two proceedings are different and parallel, each having a distinct purpose. The object of confiscation proceedings is to enable speedy and effective adjudication 4 with regard to confiscation of the produce and the means used for committing the offence while the object of the prosecution is to punish the offender. The scheme of the Adhiniyam prescribes an independent procedure for confiscation. The intention of prescribing separate proceedings is to provide a deterrent mechanism and to sop further misuse of the vehicle.
24. At the cost of repetition we clarify that confiscatory proceedings are independent of the main criminal proceedings. In view of our detailed discussion in the preceding paragraphs we are of the opinion that High Court as well as the revisional court erred in coming to a conclusion that the confiscation under the law was not permissible unless the guilt of the accused is completely established."
This Court at the Principal Seat, Jabalpur in the case of Wakeel Khan vs. State of MP decided on 08/02/2018 in MCRC 348/2016 has held as under:-
''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.'' Thus, the trial and conviction of accused is not a sine qua non for confiscation of vehicle and separate proceedings have been prescribed for confiscation of vehicle.
It is next contended by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not illegally transporting the sand and his tractor was wrongly seized. In the present case, the 5 applicant has not produced any royalty receipt to show that he was transporting the sand in accordance with law. The menace of illegal excavation of sand is increasing day by day in the locality and therefore, it is required to be dealt with firmly.
Section 58 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 deals with forfeiture of property derived from illegal hunting and trade. The complete procedure has been prescribed for forfeiture of property.
Since the proceedings for forfeiture of the tractor are yet to be completed, therefore, at this stage, it would not be proper for this Court to give any finding in regard to innocence or involvement of the applicant in the crime.
Considering the allegations, increasing threat and illegal transportation of sand in the locality, this Court is of the view that the Courts below did not commit any mistake in rejecting the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC.
Accordingly, the dated 26/10/2017 passed in Criminal Revision No.143/2017 by ASJ, Karera, District Shivpuri as well as the order dated 20/09/2017 passed in POR No.73/2011 by JMFC, Karera, District Shivpuri are hereby affirmed.
The application fails and is accordingly rejected.
(G.S.Ahluwalia) Judge MKB Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2018.03.01 18:48:57 +05'30'