Rajesh Singh Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8519 MP

                                      1            Mcrc.14332.2021

              The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
                          Mcrc.14332.2021
           (Rajesh Singh Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior dated 09.12.2021

      Shri R.B.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Koushlendra Singh Tomar, learned Public Prosecutor

for the respondent/State.

This application under Section 482 CrPC is preferred by he

petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by revisional Court

on 10.02.2021 confirming the order of trial Court dated

08.10.2020 passed in crime case No. 425/2020 whereby

petitioner's application under Sections 451 of Cr.P.C. for release

of vehicle i.e. Tractor Trolley bearing registration No. MP 30 AB

1773 has been rejected.

In brief facts of the case are that on 15.06.2020, Police

Station Nayagaon District Bhind on the information of

whistleblower seized Tractor Trolley bearing registration No. MP

30 AB 1773 for the offence punishable under Section 379, 414 of

IPC registered as crime No.61/20 since the vehicle was not having

valid transit permit at the relevant point of time. Information of

the offence was forwarded to the Mining Officer Bhind.

The offence has been compounded by the Collector in case

No. 25/20-21 directing for release of the vehicle after imposing

fine of Rs.25,000/- which was deposited by the petitioner through

challan.

The Courts below have justified rejection of application on 2 Mcrc.14332.2021

the premise that the aforesaid vehicle was not having valid transit

passes at the relevant point of time, therefore, prima facie were

involved in illegal transportation of sand. That apart, the Courts

below opined that even after the offence has been compounded by

the Collector directing for release of the vehicle after imposing

fine, still such vehicles used for commission of theft and illegal

excavation and transportation of minerals are liable to be

confiscated, as observed by this Court in W.P. No. 4686/2019

(Maniah Rishishwar Vs. State of M.P.) decided on 29/11/2019 and

Mohd. Wasim Vs. State of M.P. (2018 (4) HCCD 2035).

Accordingly, the application was rejected

Shri Tomar, 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 3 Mcrc.14332.2021

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."

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 4 Mcrc.14332.2021

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

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.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty Thousand Only) with one

solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial

Court by the petitioner, the aforesaid vehicle (Tractor Trolley

bearing registration No. MP 30 AB 1773) 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;

5 Mcrc.14332.2021

(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

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.

(Deepak Kumar Agarwal) Judge ojha

YOGENDRA OJHA 2021.12.10 10:53:03 +05'30'