Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MP 781
1 MCRC-25984-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-25984-2018
(RAMESH PRATAP SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-08-2018
Shri Rajendra Prasad Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Y.D. Yadav, GA for the respondent/State.
This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for release of the tractor, registration No. MP-53-AA-6310. Allegedly, the tractor was seized in connection with Crime No.180/2018, registered at Police Station Churhat in connection with illegal transportation of sand from Duara Ghat of Sone River, which is a reserve forest, for offence under Sections 379, 414, 34 of IPC read with Sections 37, 29, 39, 41-D and 51 Wildlife Protection Act, Sections 2, 41, 52 of Forest Act, Sections 4, 21 of Mines Act and Section 15 of Protection of Environment Act.
On behalf of the petitioner it is claimed that he is the registered owner of the tractor. He has filed registration certificate issued by R.T.O., Sidhi and insurance certificate issued by National Insurance Company Ltd. He also claimed that the tractor has been implicated falsely. If the tractor is allowed to be kept in open for a long time, the machineries will be damaged and the petitioner will be deprived of using the tractor. Therefore, the same be released on supurdnama.
Application for release under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed by learned JMFC on 15.05.2018. Subsequent, Criminal Revision No.81/2018 filed before First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi has also been dismissed.
The petitioner contended that learned trial Court erred gravely in rejecting the application. The petitioner is the owner of the tractor. The petitioner is ready to furnish necessary surety bonds. He is a poor villager. The tractor is required for agricultural purposes, therefore, same be released.
On behalf of the respondent/State, the petition is opposed vehemently and it is contended that the petitioner will misuse the tractor again if released on supurdnama.
The tractor was involved in illegal transportation of sand from the reserve forest. If the tractor is allowed to stand in the sun and rain, it will be rusted and decayed. The criminal trial would take considerable time. Even if the tractor is involved in the crime, confiscation can only be 2 MCRC-25984-2018 made after completion of the trial and after contravention of the Forest Act is proved. In this regard reliance is placed on Madhukar Rao vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others (FB), 2000 (1) MPLJ 289. Subsequently, it was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs Madhukar Rao, (2008) 14 SCC 624.
Keeping in view the guideline given by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 , it would be appropriate to release the vehicle within 15 days, otherwise the vehicle will be damaged and decayed.
In the case of State of Karnataka vs K. Krishnan, (2000) 7 SCC 80, the Apex Court has held that "before passing the order for releasing the forest produce or property used in commission of forest offence, the authorized officer, appellate Court has to satisfy the reasons which justify the release. The liberal approach in the matter would perpetuate the commission of more offences with respect to the forest and its produce which, i f not protected, is surely to affect the mother-earth a n d the atmosphere surrounding it."
The Apex Court further added that "the courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the Forest Act enacted for the purposes of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. The forests are not only the natural wealth of the country but also protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere. If the vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings. Nonetheless, i f for any exceptional reasons a court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition. No party shall be under the impression that release of vehicle would be possible on easier terms, when such vehicle is alleged to have been involved in commission of a forest offence. Any such easy release would t e m p t t h e forest offenders t o r e p e a t c o mmi s s i o n o f such offences.Therefore, condition regarding bank guarantee be a must."
Considering the above circumstances and the fact that the petitioner is registered owner of the tractor bearing registration No. M.P. 53-AA- 6310, this petition is allowed, the same be delivered to the petitioner on Supurdnama subject to producing of the original Registration Certificate and Insurance Certificate and on satisfying the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall furnish a Bank Guarantee of Rs.1,50,000/-
3 MCRC-25984-2018 (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) [as has been held in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. K. Krishnan, (2000) 7 SCC 80] and personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three Lac Only) 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) The petitioner shall not transfer/sale/alienate or create third party interest in respect of vehicle in question without the permission of trial Court.
(iii) The petitioner will not change the parts, colour or machinery, except for necessary repairs for smooth running of the vehicle.
(iv) The petitioner will produce the vehicle at his own expenses as and when directed to be produced.
(v) The petitioner shall not use the vehicle for any similar offence.
(vi) If the above conditions are breached, learned trial Court may forthwith pass an order for seizure of the vehicle and proceed in accordance with law.
(vii) The petitioner shall get the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number of vehicle in question. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer who will be deputed by the trial court and to be kept in the file of the case.
(viii) The petitioner will produce the vehicle as and when required by the trial Court during the trial till disposal of the criminal case as well as by the confiscating authority till final disposal of the confiscation proceeding pending, if any.
(ix) The petitioner shall not allow the vehicle to be used for any anti social activities.
(x) In the event of confiscation order by the Court competent, the petitioner shall keep the vehicle present positively for confiscation.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
C.C as per rules.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2018.08.09 18:10:14 -07'00' vkt