Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 March, 2017
MCRC-866-2017
(ASHISH KUMAR GUPTA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
15-03-2017
Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pramod Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2017 passed in Cr. Revision No.32/2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Umariya (MP) dismissing the revision of the applicant, arising out of order dated 12.11.2016 passed in Forest Crime No.7515/2004, by JMFC Umaria, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 457 & 451 of Cr.P.C. for custody of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.MP-18- GA/3411, has been rejected.
As per prosecution the offending vehicle bearing registration No. MP-18-GA/3411 was seized on account of illegal transportation of forest produce. Thereafter, an offence has been registered vide Forest Crime No.7515/2004 before JMFC Umaria, District Umaria for the offence punishable under Sections 26(1)(Ka), 41 and 52 of Indian Forest Act and Sections 5 and 10 of M.P. Vanopaj Adhiniyam. The applicant filed an application under Section 457 & 451 of Cr.P.C. for releasing the offending vehicle on interim custody/Supurdginama, which has been dismissed by the learned Magistrate.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that the learned Magistrate as well as learned Revisional Court while passing the impugned orders have failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested with them and committed grave error of law in holding that the aforesaid property cannot be given on Supurdginama as confiscation proceedings are going on before the Collector. It is further submitted that if the seized vehicle is kept for a long time in open space, it will be damaged by vagaries of weather. He further submits that the applicant-Ashish Kumar Gupta S/o Shri B.L. Gupta is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle. He submits that this case is squarely covered by the earlier decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Madhukar Rao Vs. State of M.P. 2000 (1) MPLJ (F.B.) 289 and aforesaid dictum of Full Bench of this Court has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Madhukar Rao, 2008 (1) JT 364. Learned counsel for the applicant prays that his vehicle be released on interim custody/Supurdginama.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposed the application on the ground that the vehicle is subjected to confiscation and seized for the offence, which is serious in nature. He prays for rejection of the application.
It is not disputed in the impugned orders that the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle concerned and that the same was not claimed by any other person also.
Provisions of Sections 457 of Criminal Procedure code provides power to the Court to pass an appropriate order for interim custody and for disposal of seized property pending trial where the property is subjected to natural decay and looking to the other circumstances to the owner of the property.
No fruitful purpose will be served by retaining the vehicle during pendency of the trial or during confiscation proceedings, rather it will diminish the value of the said vehicle, when the applicant is ready to produce the vehicle as and when called by the above mentioned Authorities, then certainly the vehicle concerned can be given in the interim custody of the registered owner. It is futile to lay the vehicle idle in the Police Station or any other unsecured place. When the vehicle concerned is not kept in the secured place i.e., garage, there is every possibility of its being damaged by vagaries of weather.
There is no bar that the property cannot be released looking to the seriousness of the offence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (1999) 5 SCC 670 held that interim custody of the seized or to be confiscated vehicle cannot be denied to a person who is registered owner, on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the Act.
Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case and further in the light of the decision in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase (supra), the impugned orders dated 12.11.2016 and 6.1.2017 are hereby quashed. It is directed that seized vehicle bearing registration No.MP-18-GA/3411 shall be delivered to the applicant on Supurdginama subject to producing the original registration certificate and permit and further on satisfying following conditions :
(i) That, the applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) for the aforesaid vehicle, with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on an undertaking to produce the said vehicle before the trial Court as and when required.
(ii) That, the applicant shall get the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photographs shall be taken in presence of the responsible Officer, who will be deputed by the trial Court and to be kept in the file of the case.
(iii) That, the personal bond of the applicant as well as surety shall carry the photographs of both and the bond of surety shall further carry the photograph of person identifying him before the Court which would be with full residential proof of the surety and the person identifying him.
(iv) The applicant shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and not to lease it to any one and not to alienate or create any third party interest and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make identifiable.
(v) The applicant will not allow the vehicle to be used for any anti-social activities.
(vi) In the event of confiscation order by the Court competent, the applicant shall produce the vehicle positively for confiscation.
With the aforesaid, this application stands allowed. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial Court/The Authority concerned for necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE A.Praj.