Jitendra Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1465 MP

                                     :: 1 ::

                                                             MCRC-62429-2021
                                        (Jitendra Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P.)


     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : GWALIOR
                              SINGLE BENCH
                  Misc. Criminal Case No.62429/2021

                            Jitendra Singh Tomar
                                     Versus
                          State of Madhya Pradesh
                        **********************

CORAM

Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivatava **********************

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance

Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

Shri Alok Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent-

State.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on                                    :      27/1/2022
Whether approved for reporting                 :      No

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-O R D E R-

(02/02/2022)

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (for brevity "CrPC") has been filed by the

petitioner against the order dated 23/10/2021 passed by Fourth :: 2 ::

MCRC-62429-2021 (Jitendra Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P.)

Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind (M.P.) in Criminal

Revision No.130/2021; whereby, the order dated 22/09/2021

passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class (for brevity "JMFC"),

District Bhind has been affirmed and the application filed by the

petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.PC has been rejected.

By said application, the petitioner has prayed for custody of seized

vehicle on supurdgi.

2. The facts, as culled out from the petition, are that on

11/12/2020 at about 4.15 PM, Mining Inspector lodged a written

complaint at Police Station Phoof, District Bhind (M.P.) alleging

therein that on the same day between 11.00 AM to 2.00 PM, when

he was checking the vehicles near Shriram Dharamkanta Tedi

Puliya, Phoof in relation to illegal excavation/ transportation

regarding minerals, four trailers bearing RJ-11-GB-2898, UP-75-

BT-6881, MP-07-HB-6926, MP-07-HB-8699 and LP Truck

No.UP-75-AT-4298 were intercepted in which minerals were

loaded wherein it was found that Electronic Transport Permit

(ETP) so produced by the drivers of said vehicles were used more

than one time for transportation of gitti/dust which is clear

violation of mineral rules. Due to which, the aforesaid vehicles

were seized and kept in front of the Mining Check Post. On the

basis of aforesaid written complaint, case was registered as Crime :: 3 ::

MCRC-62429-2021 (Jitendra Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P.)

No.395/2020 at Police Station Phoof, District Bhind (M.P.) for the

offence under Sections 379 and 414 of IPC. Thereafter, the

petitioner moved an application under Sections 451 and 457 of the

Cr.P.C, seeking interim custody of the vehicle (Trailer/Truck)

bearing registration No.MP-07-HB-6926 before the JMFC, Bhind

but the said application was dismissed and therefore, being

crestfallen, petitioner moved the revision before the Fourth

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind but met the same fate, therefore,

this petition has been preferred.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

impugned orders passed by the Courts below are arbitrary and

have been passed without application of the judicial mind.

Petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle

(Trailer/Truck) bearing registration No.MP-07-HB-6926. In

support of his version, copy of registration certificate has been

filed along-with this petition for perusal of this Court whereby

Jitendra Singh Tomar S/o Rajveer Singh Tomar is shown as the

registered owner of the seized vehicle. It is further submitted that

the vehicle has been seized for offence under Sections 379, 414 of

IPC and Section 53 of Mines and Mineral Act. Learned counsel

for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner requires the

offending vehicle for his livelihood. If the vehicle is permitted to :: 4 ::

MCRC-62429-2021 (Jitendra Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P.)

be kept for indefinite period in the open place in concerning

police station then there is every likelihood of the vehicle being

damaged. Learned counsel for the petitioner is ready to abide by

any condition which may be imposed by this Court. In support of

his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10

SCC 283], General Insurance Council and others Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh & others (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 226 and Multani

Hanifbhai Kalubhai vs. State of Guajrat & Anr. [2013(3) SCC

240]. Hence, prayed that by quashing the impugned orders of the

Courts below, the vehicle in question be given in the custody of

the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed

the prayer made by petitioner and has submitted that trial is still

pending. The illegal excavation of sand is disturbing ecological

balance of area. It is further causing serious threat/damage to the

bed of rivers, thereby seriously jeopardizing habitats of marine

life. The vehicle in question has been used for illegal purpose,

therefore, considering the gravity and nature of offence, trial

Court has rightly passed impugned order while rejecting the

application u/S.451/457 CrPC for release of vehicle on interim :: 5 ::

MCRC-62429-2021 (Jitendra Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P.)

custody to the petitioner. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this

petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents available on record.

6. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as

under:

"482. Saving for inherent power of High Court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

7. The powers of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC are

partly administrative and partly judicial. The Hon'ble Apex Court

in State of Karnataka vs. Muniswami [AIR 1977 SC 1489] held

the section envisages three circumstances in which the inherent

jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, "to give effect to an order

under CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and to

secure the ends of justice."

8. The jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is discretionary.

The Court may depend upon the facts of a given case. Court can

always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the

same by exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC. It is :: 6 ::

MCRC-62429-2021 (Jitendra Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P.)

true that there powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any

other provisions of the Code. However, such inherent powers are

to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

9. It is also settled law that the inherent power under Section

482 of CrPC has to be exercised for the ends of the justice and

should not be arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal process

of a criminal trial.

10. It is apparent from the perusal of the record that this is a

case where petitioner is owner of Trailer/Truck in question, which

was allegedly involved in excavation and transportation of illegal

gitti/dust which is a crime being occurred day in and day out in

this region and to the extent of blatant arrogance. The said vehicle

was being used in illegal transportation of gitti/dust and therefore,

offence has also been registered under Sections 379 and 414 of

IPC, therefore, impact of said offence is yet to be assessed by the

trial Court in trial and also the fact that the ETP was not used is to

be proved through evidence before the trial Court. Hence,

looking to the allegations and rampant practice around, case for

releasing the vehicle on supurdgi lacks merits.

11. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and

K.Krishnan;[AIR 2000 SC 2729] held that a liberal approach for

release of vehicle or implements involved in aforesaid offences :: 7 ::

MCRC-62429-2021 (Jitendra Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P.)

should not be adopted by the Court and the same should not be

normally be returned to a party till the culmination of the

proceedings in respect of such offences including confiscatory

proceedings except in exceptional cases. The said view has been

reiterated and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of

State of West Bengal Vs. Gopal Sarkar, (2002) 1 SCC 495 and

State of West Bengal & Anr. Vs. Mahua Sarkar, (2008) 12 SCC

763. Although, the case in hand does not entail involvement of

forest offences prima facie (subject to proceedings of trial Court)

but it's direct involvement in offence causing environment

degradation.

12. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

Vikramadita Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2014 (3) MPHT 142 and

M.Cr.C.No.21295/2017 (Shriniwas Dubey Vs. State of M.P.)

has considered the said aspect in detail and thereafter rejected the

application for releasing the vehicle on Supurdgi.

13. Considering the above-mentioned annunciation of law

along-with facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered

opinion of this Court, release of vehicle may embolden such

elements and possibility cannot be ruled out that after release, the

vehicle may again be utilized for transportation of illegal mines or

mineral to defraud the State exchequer and to cause environment :: 8 ::

MCRC-62429-2021 (Jitendra Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P.)

degradation further.

14. Resultantly, the petition sans merits and is hereby

dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to revisit

this Court after recording of prosecution evidence.

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge pwn*PAWAN KUMAR 2022.02.03 11:11:11 +05'30'