Tillu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8092 MP

                                       1           Mcrc.49361.2021

              The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
                        Mcrc.49361.2021
                     (Tillu Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior dated 02.12.2021

      Shri Deependra Singh Kushwah, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

      Shri B.M. Shrivastava, learned Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State.

This application under Section 482 CrPC is preferred taking

exception to the order passed by revisional Court on 06.09.2021

confirming the order of trial Court dated 09.06.2021 passed in

crime case No. 145/2021 whereby petitioner's application under

Sections 451, 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of vehicle bearing

registration No. UP 82 T 8559 has been rejected.

As per prosecution case, the said vehicle was used for

transportation of illegally excavated sand tentamounting to theft

and illegal transportation. Therefore, the offence under Section

379 of IPC has been registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that law is well

settled as regards release of vehicles on supurdginama. According

to him the object of the court is that any property which in the

control of court directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the

court and just and proper order should be passed by the Court

regarding its disposal. No useful purpose shall be subserved while

keeping the vehicle stranded exposed to open weather conditions.

With the passage of time, the vehicle shall suffer natural decay 2 Mcrc.49361.2021

and result into its devaluation. The petitioner shall abide by such

terms and conditions this Court deems fit and proper if the vehicle

is released on supurdginama. Learned counsel for the petitioner

also submits that no case has been registered by the Mining

Department for the alleged illegal excavation and transportation

of sand in the offending vehicle.

Shri Kushwah, learned counsel for the petitioner contends

that in the context of release of vehicle on Supurdgi, the Supreme

Court in the case of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil Vs.

State of Mysore ((1977)4 SCC 358) has ruled as under:-

"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 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 3 Mcrc.49361.2021

every case where it has taken cognizance."

The said judgment has been followed subsequently in

number of cases including Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State

of Gujarat ((2002)10 SCC 283) and General Insurance Council

and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., ((2010) 6 SCC

768, paras 12 to 15).

That apart, this Court in number of cases including M.Cr.C.

No. 42346/2021 (Ramsevak Singh Vs. State of M.P.) and M.Cr.C.

No.52253/2021 (Dharmendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.) has ordered

for release of vehicles for the reasons as indicated by the Apex

Court in the aforesaid judgment.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

application and supported the impugned order.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is

of the view that unless the vehicle is confiscated, during currency

of period of seizure pending proceedings for confiscation or

otherwise, the competent Court must endeavor to release the

vehicles on Supurdgi to rule out the possibility of damage and

deterioration in quality and value due to various factors including

exposure to weather conditions, unless of course the release of the

vehicles in a way may affect trial, regard being had to its

evidentiary value.

In the case of pending trial for the offences punishable

under sections 379 of the IPC, continuance of seizure of vehicle

may not be required and, therefore, relying upon the judgment of 4 Mcrc.49361.2021

the Apex Court quoted above, the vehicle is liable to be released

and is, accordingly, ordered to be released on following

conditions:-

(i) It is ordered that on furnishing personal bond of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs Only) with one solvent surety in

the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court by the

petitioner, the aforesaid vehicle (Canter bearing registration

numbers UP82 T 8559) shall be handed over to the respective

petitioner on Supurdginama on proving ownership of the same;

(ii) whenever it would be required by the competent Court the

same will be produced on petitioner's 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 petitioner shall neither alter or change the condition of the

aforesaid vehicle in any manner whatsoever during pendency of

the litigation;

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

aforesaid vehicle;

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

engraved in the chassis and engine of the vehicle;

(vii) in the event, all or any of the aforesaid conditions are found

to have been violated, the respondent / State is at liberty to move 5 Mcrc.49361.2021

this Court to such modification / variation of the order passed by

this Court today.

With the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Rohit Arya) Judge ojha

YOGENDR A OJHA 2021.12.0 3 11:14:17 +05'30'