Madhya Pradesh High Court

Satish Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 January, 2022

Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                                      1


          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                            Bench Gwalior
                          *****************
           SB:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                            MCRC 52626 of 2021

                        Satish Kumar Vs. State of MP


               ==================================
Shri Romesh Pratap Singh, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Purushottam Tanwar, counsel for the respondent /State.
               ==================================
Reserved on                                  25/01/2022
Whether approved for reporting              ..../.......
                ==================================
                                   ORDER

(Passed on 28/01/2022)

Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J:-

By invoking the inherent powers of this Court, petitioner has filed the

present petition u/S. 482 of CrPC for quashment of the order dated 08/10/2021

passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision

No.125 of 2021 affirming the order dated 22/09/2021 passed by the Court of

JMFC, Bhind in connection with Crime No.155/2021 registered at Police

Station Phoop, Distt. Bhind against petitioner for offences punishable under

Sections 283, 379, 414 IPC, whereby the application filed by petitioner u/S.

451/457 CrPC for release of his vehicle (dumper) bearing registration

No.UP84T9608 on interim custody, has been rejected.

(2) Facts giving rise to present petition, in short, are that on the alleged date

of incident i.e. 16/07/2021, near High School Barahi, Bhind, the aforesaid

vehicle (dumper) of the petitioner was seized in connection with Crime

No.155/2021 registered at Police Station concerned for commission of offence

under Sections 283, 379, 414 of IPC due to illegal transportation of sand.

Thereafter, driver of the dumper was arrested and a notice was served under

Section 41 CrPC upon the driver of offending vehicle. Since no document

could be produced by driver of offending vehicle in regard to the royalty,

payment of permission of transportation of sand, therefore, SHO of the police

station issued a letter to the District Mining Officer to seize the offending

vehicle and on the report of Mining Officer, a penalty was imposed by the

Collector, Bhind upon the petitioner in the sum of Rs.2 lac and in pursuance

thereof, the petitioner deposited same for compounding the offence under the

MP Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading) Rues, 2019 and the

Collector directed the Mining Officer to release vehicle of the petitioner.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 451/457 of CrPC

before the Court of JMFC for release of vehicle but the same has been

dismissed vide order dated 22/09/2021 and being aggrieved, the petitioner

thereafter filed a criminal revision before the Revisional Court and the same

has been dismissed by the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated

08/10/2021. Hence, this petition.

(3) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle (dumper). The

registration certificate and other requisite documents of said vehicle have been

produced in support of his contention. It is further submitted that the vehicle if

keeps in the police station, then the same will get damaged due to the weather

conditions. Petitioner is the peaceful citizen of the village concerned and the

vehicle in question is the only source of his livelihood and if the vehicle is

permitted to be kept for indefinite period in the open place in police station,

then there is every likelihood of vehicle being damaged. Petitioner is ready and

willing to abide by any condition which may be imposed by this Court. It is

further submitted that impugned orders passed by learned Courts below are

contrary to the provisions of law and the same are liable to be quashed, as

they are passed in anticipation of confiscation of vehicle as per Mining Rules,

2019. Petitioner has already deposited the penalty of Rs.2 lac imposed upon

him by the Collector. It is further submitted that police has not issued notice

u/S. 41-A CrPC but has issued notice u/S.41A of CrPC to the driver of

offending vehicle which is contrary to provisions of law. The trial is pending

and the conclusion of same will take some reasonable time. It is submitted

that as and when the vehicle is seized and kept in police station concerned, not

only vehicle occupy substantial space of police station but upon being kept in

open space, is also prone to cause natural decay on account of weather

conditions. Even a good-maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is

kept in police station for more than fifteen days. In support of contention, he

has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC

283 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the necessary provisions as to

how to release vehicle on interim custody to the registered owner of the

vehicle.

(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 custody to the petitioner.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition.

(5) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs.

State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, has laid down following

provisions as to how to release vehicle and it is profitable to reproduce the

relevant paragraphs 17 and 18 of said judgment herein:-

"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. It is undisputed that the criminal trial is still pending in relation to vehicle in question and the said vehicle is lying idle since long in the custody of police, due to which its condition is deteriorating day by day.''

(6) Section 451 of CrPC reads as under:-

451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation-

For the purposes of this section, "property" includes-

(a)property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody.

(b)any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

Section 457 of CrPC reads as under:-

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property. (1)Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained,

respecting the custody and production of such property.

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.'' (7) On perusal of the record, it is apparent that petitioner is the registered

owner of seized vehicle (dumper) and till date, no any information has been

received regarding confiscation proceedings of the seized vehicle. Petitioner

has already deposited Rs.2 lac as penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the

Collector under MP Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading)

Rules, 2019. Whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized

vehicle at the police station concerned for a long period. It is for the

Magistrate concerned to pass an appropriate order immediately after taking

appropriate bond and guarantee as well as the security for return of said

vehicle to petitioner on interim custody, if required, at any point of time.

(8) In the light of law laid down by the Hn'ble Supreme Court in the matter

of Sundar Bhai Ambalal Desai (supra), so also after taking into consideration

the submissions made by the parties, it is directed that if petitioner submits a

Bank Guarantee of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lac only) before concerned

Court/Magistrate and furnishes interim custody bond in the sum of

Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five lac only) to the satisfaction of trial

Court/ Magistrate concerned, then possession of vehicle in question be given

to petitioner interim custody during pendency of trial subject to following

conditions:-

(i) On verification of requisite documents pertaining to vehicle in question, same shall be released and be handed over to the custody of

registered owner i.e. petitioner.

(ii) Petitioner will not make any change in the appearance of vehicle in question;

(ii) He shall not create third party rights over the vehicle in question;

(iv) He shall produce the vehicle before the trial Court/ Magistrate, as and when demanded, on his own cost;

(v) It is made clear that after release of vehicle, if same nature offence or any offence is committed by using this vehicle, the aforesaid Bank Guarantee shall be forfeited automatically.

(vi) This order shall remain in force till final disposal of the case pending before the trial Court/ Magistrate and at the time of final disposal of the case, the trial Court/Magistrate will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders with regard to vehicle in question in accordance with law without getting influenced by this order.

(vii) In the event of confiscation order by the competent authority or the Collector, the petitioner hall keep the vehicle present positively for confiscation. If confiscation proceedings have already been started, then this order shall have no force.