Bhagirath Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2234 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2234 MP
Judgement Date : 10 June, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bhagirath Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 June, 2021

Author: Sheel Nagu

                                   1


            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                               CRR-1316-2021
                     (Bhagirath Sharma Vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior, dated :10/6/2021

      Shri Anand Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Purushottam Tanwar, learned Pane Lawyer for the State.

1.

Revisional powers of this Court u/Ss.397 r/W 401 of Cr.P.C. are

invoked assailing the legality and propriety of the interim order passed by

learned trial Judge on 26/03/2021 dismissing an application u/Ss.451 and

457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of vehicle-Tractor bearing Registration

No.MP-07-AB-8658 which was used in respect of offence of assembling

and preparing for dacoity u/Ss.399, 400, 402 IPC, Section 11/13 MPDVPK

Act & Section 25/27 of Arms Act.

2. It is not disputed that the trial is pending and is at the stage where

charge has been framed but adducing of evidence has not yet commenced on

behalf of the prosecution and therefore, trial would take long to conclude.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the decision of

Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat [AIR

2003 SC 638] and General Insurance Council and others Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh & others [(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 226] submits that no

useful purpose would be served to allow the seized vehicle- tractor to lie

idle at the Police Station Gormi, District Bhind as it would neither be of any

utility for the prosecution and so also, the owner of the vehicle who would

be deprived of using the same for any profitable purpose.

3.1 The relevant extract of Apex Court Judgment rendered in Sunderbhai

Ambalal Desai (Supra) is reproduced below for ready reference and

convenience:-

"7. In our view, the powers under Section 451, Cr. P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."

3.2 Similarly in General Insurance Council and others (Supra), it has

been held as under:-

"It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only do they occupy substantial space in the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its roadworthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road. To avoid all this, apart form the aforesaid directions issued hereinabove, we direct that all the State Governments/Union Territories/Director Generals of Police shall ensure macro implementation of the statutory provisions and further direct that the activities of each and every police station, especially with regard to disposal of the seized vehicles be taken care of by the Inspector General of Police of the division/ Commissioner of Police concerned of the cities/ Superintendent of Police concerned of the district concerned."

4. In terms of above, it would be appropriate that the owner of the

vehicle who is the petitioner herein who is not an accused in the offence in

question is allowed to use the said vehicle subject to terms and conditions

pending decision in the trial.

5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with the

following directions:-

(i) The impugned order dated 26/03/2021 passed by Special Judge (Dacoity), District - Bhind, dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner u/Ss.451 & 457 Cr.P.C. stands quashed.

(ii) That, the learned Trial Judge is directed to release the interim custody of the vehicle-Tractor bearing Registration No.MP-07-AB-8658 in favour of petitioner after verifying the fact of the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle in question, on a surety and security of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Only) to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge.

(iii) That, petitioner shall file an undertaking that he shall not alter the shape, colour, ownership or any other physical attribute of the vehicle in question during the period of interim custody and shall produce the same as and when the learned Trial Judge directs.