Sumramal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8275 MP

        The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore

                     M.Cr.C. No.44668/2021
                 (Sumramal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P)

Indore:06.12.2021
      Shri V. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rahul
Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Ms.    Vinita    Phaye,    learned   Govt.   Advocate     for   the
respondent/State.

Heard.

This Miscellaneous Criminal Case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 06.07.2021, passed by learned IVth Aditional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur(M.P.) in Cr.R. No.30/2021 whereby the criminal revision against the order dated 27/05/2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandsaur(M.P.) was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 06/07/2021, however, imposed conditions on the petitioner for release of the seized vehicles and according to the petitioners, the conditions imposed are arbitrary, impractical and illegal. Hence, this petition.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are in the business of leasing/renting heavy-duty machinery. On 22/05/2021, an alleged surprise inquiry was conducted by the concerned authority, during which allegedly, at Survey Nos.1054 and 1059 situated in village Khodana, the petitioners were booked for excavating land without permission, due to which proceedings under Section 53 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 and FIR under Sections 379, 414 of IPC and Section 4 read with Section 18(A) of Mine and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Act 1957 were initiated against the petitioners and 7 vehicles of the petitioners bearing registration no (i) RJ-19-GI-6036- Sumramal; (ii) RJ-19-GF- 8362 - Amraram; (iii) MP-09-LG-4526 - Amraram; (iv) RJ-19 GG- 5132 - Premram; (v) TATA Poklane Machine EX 210 - Amraram; (vi) TATA Poklane Machine EX 200 - Amraram; and (vii) RJ 19 GE 7200

- Kamalkishore(through Premram) were also seized.

The FIR No.113/2021 was also registered against the petitioners at Police Station Bhavgadh, Mandsaur(M.P.). The The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore

M.Cr.C. No.44668/2021 (Sumramal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P)

petitioners filed an application under Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate, Mandsdaur(M.P.) and the same was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 27/05/2021. Aggrieved with the above order, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.30/2021 under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Mandsaur(M.P.) whereby the learned IVth Sessions Judge pleased to set aside the order dated 27/05/2021, however, while allowing allowed the revision, has imposed an arbitrary and illegal condition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the conditions imposed by the learned Revisional Court are illegal and in complete violation of the provisions of law and the rights guaranteed and enshrined under the Constitution of India. As per the said condition, the order dated 06/07/2021 would only come into effect after the petitioners have paid the entire compounding fees. By imposing such a condition, the learned Sessions Judge, without following the procedure established by law, have declared the petitioners liable for the alleged offence, qua which the trial has not even begun yet.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in the meanwhile, Notice No.-1482/Mining/A.U./2021(Annexure-P/4) dated 02/07/2021 was issued by the Collector, Mining Department against the petitioners, qua which the petitioners had also filed a preliminary reply(Annexure-P/5) pointing out the objections which prima facie prove that no illegal act has been committed by the petitioners. The Collector vide order dated 10.08.2021(Annexure-P/6) directed that a re-inquiry be conducted in the present case keeping in mind the points raised by the petitioners in the reply dated 09/07/2021. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had wrongly interpreted the provisions of law while passing the impugned order as the petitioners had only sought the interim custody of the vehicles, and not prayed for the discharge of the vehicles. Hence, imposition of the Compounding fees for release of The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore

M.Cr.C. No.44668/2021 (Sumramal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P)

vehicles is not only against the applicable provisions of law, but also against the principle of presumption of innocence. Hence, the ought condition ought to be deleted. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge, Mandsaur has imposed a condition to the tune of Rs.8,39,53,750/- for release of the vehicles, whereas total cost of the vehicles, as per the FIR is only Rs.1,40,000/-. Imposition of such an exorbitant condition is nothing, but a prima facie punishment against the petitioners, with a pre-judged mindset, which is against the settled principles of law.

It is settled law that Criminal Courts are not meant for recovery proceedings and relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gouri Shankar Mishra Vs. State of West Bengal, 2009 SCC Online Cal 2225 and Shri Gopal Balasubramaniam Iyer v. Dakshesh Ratanlal Shah 2016 SCC Online Bombay 15931 learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when separate proceeding regarding the imposition of penalty/compounding fees have already been initiated by the respondent before the appropriate forum, the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandsaur(M.P.) for deposition of the same is not only arbitrary and illegal, but also against the settled principles of law, and ought to be set aside.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the releasing of vehicle on Supurdnama.

Provisions of Sections 451 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 vehicle during pendency of the trial, rather it will diminish the value of the said vehicle, when the petitioners are ready to produce the vehicles as and The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore

M.Cr.C. No.44668/2021 (Sumramal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P)

when called by above mentioned Authorities, then certainly the vehicles can be given in interim custody of the registered owner. It is futile to lay the vehicles idle in the Police Station or any other unsecured place. When the vehicles concerned are not kept in the secured place i.e. garage, there is every possibility of it being damaged by vagaries of weather.

Keeping in view above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 06/07/2021, passed by the learned IVth Sessions Judge, Mandsaur(M.P.) is hereby quashed. It is directed that seized 7 vehicles of the petitioners bearing registration no (i) RJ-19-GI-6036- Sumramal; (ii) RJ-19-GF- 8362 - Amraram; (iii) MP-09-LG-4526 - Amraram; (iv) RJ-19 GG- 5132 - Premram; (v) TATA Poklane Machine EX 210 - Amraram; (vi) TATA Poklane Machine EX 200 - Amraram; and (vii) RJ 19 GE 7200

- Kamalkishore(through Premram) shall be delivered to the petitioners on Supurdginama subject to production of original registration certificate and insurance certificate on the following terms and conditions:-

(i) That, every petitioners namely Sumramal, Amraram, Premaram Jaat and Kamalkishore shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only)each with one solvent surety each 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 petitioners shall get the vehicles photographed showing the registration numbers of the vehicles. Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer, who will be deputed by the trial Court and to be a kept in the file of the case.

(iii) That, the personal bond of the petitioners as well as surety The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore

M.Cr.C. No.44668/2021 (Sumramal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P)

shall carry the photographs of both and the bond of surety shall further carry the photograph of persons identifying them before the Court which would be with full residential proof of the surety and the person identifying them.

(iv) That, the petitioners shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicles and shall not lease it to anyone and not make or allow any changes such as colour etc. in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable.

(v) That, the petitioners will not allow the vehicles to be used in any anti-social and unlawful activities.

(vi) In the event of confiscation order by the Court competent, the petitioners shall keep the vehicles present positively for confiscation.

(vii) The petitioners is also directed to produce Bank Guarantee of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)each for two years before the concerned Court for aforesaid purpose.

The petition is allowed in above terms.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court/Authority concerned for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Rajendra Kumar (Verma)) Judge

pn

PREETH Digitally signed by PREETHA NAIR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=JUDICIAL, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=5431da3716f911ecd1cb3fc6dc91ea2cace c60259cb241b9ad42416f404bb303,

A NAIR pseudonym=BEA9A029360DBE02FDC86E8557A51 9B70B35E1A7, serialNumber=0EC5BE08895BA17A6074239F753A 38DE8188C5E65085178B87CD8C85BA5B87CC, cn=PREETHA NAIR Date: 2021.12.08 18:22:06 +05'30'