Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2021
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 M.Cr.C.No.53997/2021
(Jitendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior Bench:
Dated 10/11/2021
Shri RBS Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anil Shukla, learned PP for the respondent/State.
With consent heard finally through Video Conferencing. This petition is preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 22/10/2021 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, District Shivpuri in Cr.R. No. 135/2021; whereby, order dated 27/08/2021 passed by trial Court has been affirmed and petitioner's application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the vehicle has been rejected.
Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 19/8/2021 complainant Vijay Adusumili, General Manager in Power-make Company, made a complaint to the effect that during patrolling onNaka, at Babedi Naka he found a truck bearing registration No. RJ05GB5433 carrying sand. When he asked the truck driver Ranjeet to show royalty receipt, he showed the same carrying dated as 19/8/2021 issued at 1.53 am from Badauni, District Datia; however, driver told he is transporting sand from Ruhera as per direction of his owner and receipt was also having seal of Ruhera check post. Thus, the driver was transporting sand illegally. Thereafter truck No. UP80FT3611 and RJ11GB0611 were also found transporting sand illegally on same lines. Case was registered under Crime No. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C.No.53997/2021 (Jitendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) 535/2021 before the Police Station Dehat, District Bhind for offence under Section 379, 414 of IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
During pendency of the trial, petitioners moved an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the vehicle, but trial Court vide order dated 27/08/2021 rejected the application and therefore, being crestfallen, petitioner moved the revision but met the same fate, therefore, this petition has bee preferred.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that both the Courts below committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned orders. Case is mainly in respect of provisions of IPC. Vehicles in question are lying with the Police Department and according to his information, no confiscation proceedings are pending in respect of seized vehicle. Therefore, as owners of the vehicles, they seeks interim custody of vehicle on Supurdgi.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the petition on the ground that Courts below have considered the material aspects in the controversy. Learned counsel relied upon order dated 1/3/2018 passed by Coordinate Bench in M.Cr.C.No. 21295/2017 (Shriniwas Dubey Vs. State of M.P.) and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C.No.53997/2021 (Jitendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) Heard.
This is a case where petitioners are owner of trucks in question, which were allegedly involved in excavation and transportation of illegal sand which is a crime being occurred day in and day out in this Region and to the extent of blatant arrogance. The trucks were being used in illegal transportation of sand and therefore, offence has also been registered under Section 379 and 414 of IPC and impact of said offence is yet to be assessed by the trial Court in trial but looking to the allegations and rampant practice around, case for releasing the vehicle on Supurdgi lacks merits. Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and K.Krishnan, AIR 2000 SC 2729 held that a liberal approach for release of vehicle or implements involved in forest offences should not be adopted by the Court and the same should not be normally be returned to a parties till the culmination of the proceedings in respect of such offence including confiscatory proceedings except in exceptional cases.
Said view has been reiterated and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Gopal Sarkar, (2002) 1 SCC 495 and State of West Bengal & Anr. Vs. Mahua Sarkar, (2008) 12 SCC 763. Although case in hand does not entail involvement of forest offences prima facie (subject to proceedings of trial Court) but it's direct involvement in offence causing HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.C.No.53997/2021 (Jitendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) environment degradation and that to at such rampant pace and that even in this region, some Senior Police Officers were killed by miscreants.
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vikramadita Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2014 (3) MPHT 142 and Shriniwas Dubey (supra) has considered the said aspect in detail and thereafter rejected the application for releasing the vehicle on Supurdgi.
In the considered opinion of this Court, release of vehicles may embolden such elements and possibility cannot be ruled out that after release, the vehicles may again be utilized for transportation of illegal sand or mineral to defraud the State exchequer and to cause environment degradation further.
Resultantly, petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(Anand Pathak) Judge jps/-
JAI Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya PRAKASH Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179 cec865c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290 EC8CB2193780D8357, SOLANKI serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6 B8072A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA 8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2021.11.11 10:30:04 +05'30'