Dimpi @ Ramhari Sharma vs The State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 8040 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8040 MP
Judgement Date : 1 December, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dimpi @ Ramhari Sharma vs The State Of M.P. on 1 December, 2021

Author: Rohit Arya

              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                    BENCH AT GWALIOR
                         Cr.R.No.2312/2020
              ( Dimpi @ Ramhari Sharma Vs. State of M.P. )
                                   (1)

Gwalior, dated : 01.12.2021

      Shri Pradhumn Singh Bhadouria, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

      Shri      R.P.Singh,   learned     Public   Prosecutor   for   the

respondent/State.

This Revision Petition arises out of the order dt.23.11.2020, by

which the trial court has rejected the application for release of the

vehicle; Maruti Suzuki Alto bearing registration No.M.P.30C.2239

seized in connection with Crime No.486/2020 registered at Police

Station Dehat Bhind for the offences under Sections 307, 294, 506,

34 of IPC and Sections 25, 27, 30 of Arms Act.

As per the prosecution story, two 315 bore guns, one cartridge

and one revolver were seized from the aforesaid car allegedly used in

commission of the aforesaid crime.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court

committed error of law and fact while rejecting the application.

Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil Vs. State of Mysore reported

in (1977) 4 SCC 358, learned counsel submits that the trial court

ought to have released the vehicle as the same shall be subject to

deterioration being exposed to whether conditions and also subject to

natural decay. The same shall also result into drastic devaluation of

the vehicle. It is submitted that the object of the Code is that any

property which is in the control of the court either directly or HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR Cr.R.No.2312/2020 ( Dimpi @ Ramhari Sharma Vs. State of M.P. )

indirectly should be disposed of by the court by passing a just and

fair order, of course, on such terms and conditions this Court deem

fit and proper. In the instant case, though it has been alleged that the

guns and revolver kept in the car were used but this by itself would

not justify to continue seizure of vehicle.

Per contra, Shri R.P.Singh, learned Public Prosecutor opposes

the revision supporting the order impugned with the submission that

the proximity of the car with the alleged crime is well evident as

both the guns and revolver kept in the car were taken out while

committing the alleged offence. Therefore, no ground is made out for

release of the car.

This court has duly considered the submissions advanced and

also has perused the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case

of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil (supra). For ready reference

para 4 thereof is quoted below :-

"4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR Cr.R.No.2312/2020 ( Dimpi @ Ramhari Sharma Vs. State of M.P. )

the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance."

In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and regard being had to the facts in hand, it is the

guns and revolver which allegedly have been used in the commission

of the crime, therefore, the vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki Alto bearing

registration No.M.P.30/C.2239 may be released on Supurdginama

but on stringent conditions.

Accordingly, the order passed by the Court below dated

23.11.2020 passed in S.T.No.191/2020 is set aside with following

directions:-

(i) It is ordered that on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,50,000/-

(Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in

the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the aforesaid

vehicle (Maruti Suzuki Alto bearing registration No.M.P.30/C.2239)

shall be handed over to the applicant on Supurdginama on proving

its ownerrship.

(ii) whenever it would be required by the competent Court the same HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR Cr.R.No.2312/2020 ( Dimpi @ Ramhari Sharma Vs. State of M.P. )

will be produced on his own expenses at the place as would be

directed in this regard;

(iii) at the time of release of the vehicle on Supurdginama, the

aforesaid authority shall ensure to take note of chassis number,

engine number and registration number of the aforesaid vehicle and

keep on record;

(iv) the applicant shall neither alter or change the condition of the

aforesaid vehicle in any manner whatsoever during pendency of the

litigation;

(v) the applicant shall not create any third party rights over the

aforesaid vehicle;

(vi) the applicant shall not fiddle with or scratch or erase numbers