Laxman @ Sanjay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4250 MP

                                 - : 1 :-
                                                       M.Cr.C. No.38378/2021



HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
    (SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)

                   M.Cr.C. No. 38378 of 2021
         (Laxman @ Sanjay S/o. Tulsiram. V/s. State of M.P.)

Date: 12.08.2021 :
      Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
      Heard the learned counsel for the parties through video
conferencing.
                               ORDER

The applicant has filed the present M.Cr.C. u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. against order dated 8.7.2021 whereby learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Dsitrict Indore dismissing the criminal revision has upheld the order dated 16.5.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC) rejecting the application filed u/s.451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.

Facts of the case, in short, are as under :

On 29.8.2020 the police team apprehended Bolero loading pick- up bearing Registration No. MP-15-G-4149 on the basis of a discrete information about transportation of illicit liquor. The driver of the said vehicle disclosed his name as Rajkishore. On search of the vehicle total 990 liters of country made liquor was recovered. Since the driver failed to produce any license or permit to transport such a large quantity of the liquor, therefore, he was arrested u/s. 34(2) of the Excise Act and the vehicle was taken into custody.

The present applicant being the owner of the vehicle filed an application u/s. 451, 457 of the Cr.P.C. for release on 'Supurdiginama'. Learned JMFC rejected the application on the ground that the vehicle is not registered in the name of the applicant and as per RC book, the same is registered in the name of Gorelal Kurmi and the Superintendent of Police has requested the Collector/District

- : 2 :-

M.Cr.C. No.38378/2021

Magistrate for initiation of confiscation proceedings.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has filed the criminal revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. While dismissing the revision vide order dated 8.7.2021 learned Addl. Sessions Judge has observed that the District Magistrate vide letter dated 22.10.2020 already gave an information to the registered owner of the vehicle - Gorelal Kurmi and the said information was received by the JMFC, hence the JMFC lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the application by virtue of 47-D of the Excise Act.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred the present petition u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicle in question is registered in the name of Gorelal but before commission of the alleged offence he had already sold the same to Ashutosh Kurmi in Rs.8,57,800/- and handed over the possession vide agreement dated 15.4.2019 and thereafter vide order dated 21.3.2020 Ashutosh Kurmi has sold the vehicle to the present applicant. Gorelal Kurmi has given the Power of Attorney in favour of Tulsiram Kurmi for filing an application for release of the vehicle on 'Supurdiginama'. He further submits that when the applicant filed an application u/s. 451, 457 of the Cr.P.C., no such information was brought to the knowledge of the Magistrate. The letter sent by the District Magistrate informing about initiation of the confiscation proceedings was lying in the charge-sheet filed by the Police, therefore, the learned Magistrate had no information about the initiation of the confiscation proceedings, hence he ought to have allowed the application for release of the vehicle on 'Supurdiginama'. In support of his contention he has placed reliance over the judgments of this Court in the case of Pratik Parik V/s. State of M.P. : 2010 (1) MPLJ 205; and Vishnu V/s. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No.40579/2020 decided on 10.12.2020).

I have perused the material available on record. As on today, the vehicle in question is registered in the name of

- : 3 :-

M.Cr.C. No.38378/2021

Gorelal. According to the applicant, Gorelal had sold the vehicle to Ashutosh, but there is no document in respect of sale of the vehicle. The name of Ashutosh has not been recorded in the RC book issued by the RTO. The applicant has filed copy of the agreement to sale (Annexure P/5) by which Ashutosh sold the vehicle to one Sanju (who signed the agreement as purchaser) and handed over the possession to Laxman and Gorelal Kurmi has given the Power of Attorney to Tulsiram for filing an application for release of the vehicle on 'Supurdiginama'. Unless the vehicle is transferred by the RTO in the name of the purchaser, it continues in the name of registered owner and no one can claim the ownership except the registered owner.

So far as the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is concerned, it is now not in dispute that when the application u/s. 451, 457 of Cr.P.C. was filed, the vehicle was not registered in the name of the present applicant and the District Magistrate had already initiated the proceedings for confiscation and an information was sent vide letter dated 22.10.2020. The Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has not given the proper information to the Magistrate, but by virtue of Section 47-D of the Excise act, the Magistrate lacks the jurisdiction to consider the application for release of the vehicle. Hence, no interference is called for.

Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. filed u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. fails and is hereby dismissed.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2021.08.13 16:03:30 +05'30'