Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
M.Cr.C.No.42769/2021
(Ravi Singh Vs. State of M.P. )
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 27.10.2021
Shri Romesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Kalpana Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondentsState.
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has assailed the order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in CRR No.99/2021 affirming the order dated 05.08.2021 passed by the JMFC, Bhind in Case No.535/2020, whereby the Dumper bearing No. R.J.11G.B.3664 alongwith sand has been confiscated.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that on 6.9.2020 at 5.35 ASI Suresh Datt Mishra FIR registered a report at Rojnamcha Sanha that when he checked a Dumper bearing registration No.R.J.11 G.B.3665 at Lahar Road, the dumper was found filled with sand and one Ramjilal Baghel was driver of the said Dumper. He brought the Dumper to the Police Station for enquiry. On enquiry it was found that on one royalty the Dumper was filled with sand twice. On the basis of the aforesaid an offence was registered against the petitioner at Crime No.535/2020 by Police Station- Dehat Bhind for the offence punishable under Section 379, 414 of IPC and 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act and the aforesaid Dumper was seized.
4. The petitioner, who is the owner of the aforesaid Dumper, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C.No.42769/2021 (Ravi Singh Vs. State of M.P. ) (2) filed an application under Section 451, 457 of Cr.P.C. for releasing the vehicle on Supurdagi. Aforesaid application was dismissed by the JMFC Bhind vide order dt.05.08.2021. Against the same, petitioner filed Criminal Revision bearing No.99/2021, which was also dismissed vide order dt.18.08.2021 affirming the order dt.05.08.2021. Being aggrieved, present petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below have not considered the case of the petitioner properly and committed error in passing the impugned orders. Petitioner is the owner of the Dumper R.J.11 G.B.3665 and no illegality has been committed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no use of keeping the aforesaid Dumper in police custody for years till the trial is over. In the present scenario of COVID -19 pandemic, trial is not likely to conclude in near future and take long time. In such circumstances, it would be just and proper to release the said Container of the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer and submitted that the orders impugned are just and proper. He further submits that no palpable error on the face of record has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the order impugned. The said vehicle would be required during the trial for describing the nature of the property in detail, therefore he prays for dismissal of the instant petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C.No.42769/2021 (Ravi Singh Vs. State of M.P. ) (3)
8. The Apex Court in the case of Sundar Bhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has laid down the procedure for disposal of the valuable items like currency, liquor, vehicle and narcotics drugs and has held as under :-
"Powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-
1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.
2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail; and
4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.
9. On bare reading of the said dictum laid down by the Apex Court, section 451 of Cr.P.C. clearly empowers the court to pass appropriate order with regard to such property, such as (1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial;
(2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it think necessary; (3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same.
10. The Apex Court in the case of Sundar Bhai (supra) has further held as under :-
"However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C.No.42769/2021 (Ravi Singh Vs. State of M.P. ) (4) seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly."
11. Apex Court in the case of General Insurance Council and others Vs. State of A.P. And others reported in 2010 AIR (SCW) 2967 has held as under :-
15. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road. To avoid all this, apart from the aforesaid directions issued hereinabove, we direct that all the State Governments/ Union Territories/Director Generals of Police shall ensure macro implementation of the statutory provisions and further direct that the activities of each and every police stations, especially with regard to disposal of the seized vehicles be taken care of by the Inspector General of Police of the concerned Division/Commissioner of Police of the concerned cities/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district.
12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the courts below did not take into consideration that keeping vehicle in the police station for a long period is of no use. The courts below ought to have passed appropriate orders by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C.No.42769/2021 (Ravi Singh Vs. State of M.P. ) (5) vehicle.
13. Accordingly, impugned order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in CRR No.99/2021 so also the order dated 05.08.2021 passed by the JMFC, Bhind in Case No.535/2020, so far as they relate to confiscation of the Dumper bearing No. R.J.11G.B.3665, are hereby set-aside.
14. It is directed that on proving ownership of Dumper bearing No. R.J.11G.B.3665 by the petitioner and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh only) alongwith one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM concerned, the aforesaid Dumper bearing No. R.J.11G.B.3665 be released on Supurdginama, subject to following conditions :
(1) That, the petitioner shall produce the said Dumper before the trial Court as and when directed to do so;
(2) That, in the meantime, he shall not eliminate the aforesaid Dumper or make use of the same for any unlawful purpose;
(3) That, he shall not carry out any change in the colour and outward appearance of the said Dumper.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands allowed.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge SP SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE 2021.10.27 16:47:50 +05'30'