Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivendra Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2015
1
M.Cr.C. No. 10920 of 2014
10.03.2015
Shri S. Pawar, Advocate for the applicant.
Smt. Pratibha Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the respondent /
State.
Heard on admission. Admit.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Special Judge Sidhi, District Sidhi in Criminal Revision No.67 /2014, arising out of order dated 22.05.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Sidhi, District Sidhi in Forest Crime No.526 /2001, whereby the Magistrate dismissed the application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for releasing of vehicles Tractor No. MP 53 M 1967 and Trolley No. MP 53 M 1968.
As per the prosecution story, on 14.05.2014 the alleged tractor and trolley loaded with sand was seized by the respondent. The sand was duly purchased from contractor of Chingi Tola Sand Mine. The employee of Forest Department seized the tractor and trolley. After taking custody of the same the prescribed officer has registered a case under Sections 27, 29, 39 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Sections 2, 41 and 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927. The applicant has filed an application under Section 457 /451 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing the offending vehicles on interim custody on Supurdginama , which has been dismissed by learned Magistrate as well as learned Revisional Court.
2Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that the learned Magistrate as well as learned Revisional Court while passing the impugned orders has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested with him and committed grave error of law in holding that the aforesaid property cannot be given on Supurdginama as confiscation proceedings had been started. It is further submitted that if the seized vehicles be kept for a long time in open space at the forest range premises, it will be damaged by vagaries of weather.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State opposed the application on the ground that the vehicles are subjected for confiscation and seized for the offence, which is serious in nature.
It is nowhere disputed in the impugned order that the applicant is not the registered owner of the vehicles concern 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 vehicles during pendency of the trial or during confiscation proceedings, rather it will diminish the value of the said vehicles, when the applicant is ready to produce the vehicles as and when called by above mentioned authorities, then certainly the vehicles concerned can be given in the interim custody of the registered owner. It is futile to lay the vehicles idle in the Police Station or any other unsecured place when 3 the vehicles concern not kept in the secured place i.e. garage there is every possibility of it 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 vehicles cannot be denied to a person who is registered owner, on the ground that the vehicles are liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the Act.
Keeping in view 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 30.06.2014 and 22.05.2014 are hereby quashed. It is directed that seized vehicles Tractor No. MP 53 M 1967 and Trolley No. MP 53 M 1968 shall be delivered to the applicant on Supurdginama subject to producing the original registration certificate and permit and further on satisfying the following conditions:-
(i) That, the applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.6,00,000 / - (Rupees Six Lacs Only) for the aforesaid vehicles, with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on an undertaking to produce the said vehicles before the trial Court as and when required.
(ii) That, the applicant shall got the vehicles photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer, who 4 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 vehicles 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 vehicles to be used for any anti- social activities.
(vi) In the event of confiscation order by the Court competent, the applicant shall keep the vehicles present positively for confiscation.
With the aforesaid, this application stands allowed. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial Court / t he authority concerned for necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE AK/ -