Madhya Pradesh High Court
Triveni Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 June, 2021
Author: Nandita Dubey
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.48372/2020
(Triveni Patel Vs. State of M.P. )
Jabalpur, Dated :23.06.2021
HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
Shri Anuj Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Swati A. George, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 16.10.2020 passed by
24th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Cr.R. No.
168/2020, whereby her application under Section 457 of the
Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Briefly stated, the facts are that the police of Police
Station, Excise, Jabalpur registered a case under Section
34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act against the applicant for illegally
transporting 117 boxes, more than 50 bulks litres of country
made liquor, which was seized from the vehicle bearing
registration No. MP20-GA-64554, the same was registered in
her name. During the pendency of the case, an application
under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant for
release of the aforesaid vehicle, which was rejected by the
impugned order.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle, which is kept
unattended for a long period at the police station premises.
It is contended that if the vehicle is not returned to the
applicant, it will turn into junk day by day. It is contended
that the vehicle may be handed over to her by taking
appropriate bond and guarantee for the return of the said
vehicle.
Per contra, Ms. Swati A. George, learned Panel Lawyer
for the respondent/State opposes the prayer. It is submitted
that applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle and the
aforesaid vehicle was found illegally transporting country
made liquor, if the vehicle is handed over to the applicant,
there is a chance that the vehicle may use again for
committing similar type of offence.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
The issue came up for consideration before the
Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal
DesaiVs. State of Gujrat (2002) 10 SCC 283 and the
Supreme Court has observed :-
" 17. 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.
18. 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."
In the case of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil Vs.
State of Mysore (1977) 4 SCC 358 the Supreme Court
has observed :-
"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. ...."
The ratio of the aforesaid judgments squarely
applicable to the facts of the present case. The order of the
trial Court is, therefore, quashed.
It is directed that the seized vehicle, 407 truck bearing
registration No. M.P.-20-GA-6454 shall be handed over to the
applicant on Supurdginama subject to producing the original
registration certificate and further on satisfying the following
conditions :-
(i) That, the applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) for the aforesaid vehicle,
with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court on an undertaking to produce the said vehicle before the
trial Court as and when required.
(ii) That, the applicant shall got the vehicle photographed
showing the registration number as well as the chassis number.
Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the
responsible officer, who will be deputed by the trial court and
to be kept in the file of the case.
(iii) That, the personal bond of the applicant as well as surety
shall carry the photographs of both and the bond of surety
shall further carry the photograph of person identifying him
before the Court which would be with full residential proof of
the surety and the person identifying him.
(iv) The applicant shall undertake not to transfer the
ownership of the vehicle and not to lease it to any one and
not to alienate or create any third party interest and not to
make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make
identifiable.
(v) The applicant will not allow the vehicle to be used for
any anti-social activities.
(vi) In the event of confiscation order by the Court
competent, the applicant shall produce the vehicle positively
for confiscation.
With the aforesaid, this application under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. stands allowed. A copy of this order be
forwarded to the learned trial Court/the authority concerned
for necessary compliance.
Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.
(Nandita Dubey)
GEETHA NAIR
Judge
gn
2021.06.24 16:29:39 +05'30'
