Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kedar Singh vs The Staet Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2022

Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                                    1


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

                              MCRC 47530 of 2021

                     Bhagwan Singh Yadav vs. State of MP
                                     &
                           MCRC 13583 of 2021
                         Kedar Singh vs. State of MP

                 ==================================
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain and Shri Akshat Kumar, counsel for -Bhagwan Singh Yadav
in MCRC 47530 of 2021 and Shri Harnarayan Sharma, counsel for petitioner-
Kedar Singh in MCRC 13583 of 2021.
Shri Kaushlendra Singh Tomar, Public Prosecutor for the State in both petitions.
                ==================================
Reserved on                                 10/01/2022
Whether approved for reporting             ........../...........
                ==================================
                                      ORDER

(Passed on 19/01/2022)

Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J:-

This order shall govern disposal of MCRC No. 13583 of 2021 filed by

petitioner Kedar Singh. Since the facts and circumstances in both the petitions are

same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, I have heard both the petitions

simultaneously.

(2) Petitioner- Bhagwan Singh Yadav (in MCRC 47530 of 2021) filed petition

u/S. 482 of CrPC for quashment of order dated 17/08/2021 passed by First

Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri (MP) in Criminal Revision

No.55 of 2021 confirming the order dated 19/07/2021 passed by JMFC, Karera,

District Shivpuri in Criminal Case No.307 of 2020, whereby the application filed

by petitioner u/S.451/457 of CrPC for release of his vehicle (dumper) bearing

registration No.MP07-GA-4320 on interim custody has been rejected. Similarly,

petitioner- Kedar Singh (in MCRC 13583 of 2021) filed petition u/S. 482 of CrPC

for quashment of order dated 18/02/2021 passed by First Additional Sessions

Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Criminal Revision No.01 of 2021 confirming

the order dated 05/12/2020 passed by JMFC, Karera, District Shivpuri in Criminal

Case No.307 of 2020, whereby the application filed by petitioner u/S. 451/457 of

CrPC for release of his vehicle (dumper) bearing registration No.MP 33 SS 3600

on interim custody has been rejected.

(3) Facts giving rise to present petitions, in short, are that on the alleged date of

incident i.e. 24/08/2020, both vehicles (dumpers) of the petitioners were seized in

connection with Crime No.479/2020 registered at Police Station Karera for

commission of offences under Sections 379, 414 of IPC and Sections 4A, 21 of

Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 ( in brevity ''the Act'')

due to illegal transportation of sand. Thereafter, both the drivers of seized vehicles

were arrested and penalty was imposed. It is submitted that the petitioners are the

registered owners of the said vehicles. They filed an application before the District

Mining Officer and on their applications, offence under Sections 4A and 21 of the

Act has been compounded by the District Mining Officer by imposing penalty of

Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. After deposit of the penalty amount, a

direction was issued to the Police Station Karera for release of the seized vehicles.

Afterwards, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, charge

sheet was filed. Petitioners, thereafter, filed applications u/S. 451/457 of CrPC

before the Court of JMFC to get the vehicles on interim custody, however, same

were rejected vide impugned orders dated 19/07/2021 and 05/12/2020

respectively. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners filed criminal revisions and the

revisional Court vide impugned orders dated 17/08/2021 and 18/02/2021 dismissed

their revisions. Hence, present petitions.

(4) It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the

petitioners are the registered owners of seized vehicles. Registration certificate and

other requisite insurance papers of said vehicles have been filed in support of their

contentions. It is further submitted that vehicles if kept in the police station

concerned, then same will get damaged due to weather condition. Petitioners are

the peaceful citizens of village concerned and vehicles are only source of their

livelihood and if the vehicles are permitted to be kept for indefinite period in the

open place in the concerning police station, then there is every likelihood of the

vehicle being damaged. Petitioners are ready to abide by any condition which may

be imposed by this Court. It is further submitted that impugned orders passed by

the learned Courts below are contrary to the provisions of law as they are in

anticipation of confiscation of vehicles as per the Minor Mineral Rules, 1996.

Petitioners have already deposited fine amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/-

respectively as imposed by District Mining Officer. In this regard, IA No. 660 of

2022 has been filed for taking the documents on record. Conclusion of trial will

take some time and only offene under Section 379 of IPC remains to trial after

compounding of other offences. It is further submitted that in the light of the

judgments passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Sahu

vs. State of MP reported in 2019 (2) MPLJ 438, and the Division Bench decision

of this Court in leading case of Rajendra Singh vs. State of MP passed on

03/08/2021 in WP 8615 of 2020 as well as the order dated 31/08/2021 passed by

this Court in MCRC No.43109 of 2021 (Manoj Kumar vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh), the vehicle in question be given in the custody of the petitioners.

Therefore, it is prayed that after considering all the facts and imposing stringent

conditions, the vehicles in question may be released in favour of petitioners on

interim custody. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since offence has

been compounded by District Mining Officer by imposing penalty under Sections

4(1) and 21(1) of the Act, now there is no criminal liability against the petitioners.

Therefore, the seized vehicles are not liable to be confiscated. Rather, it should be

released as soon as the judgment is passed. Hence, the impugned orders passed by

the learned Courts below deserve to be quashed.

(5) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the

prayer made by petitioners and has submitted that the trial is still pending. The

illegal excavation of sand is disturbing the ecological balance of the area. It is

further causing serious threat/damage to the bed of rivers, thereby seriously

jeopardizing the habitats of marine life. The vehicles have been used for illegal

purpose, therefore, considering the gravity of offence, the Courts below have

rightly passed impugned orders while rejecting the applications filed by petitioners

u/S. 451/457 CrPC for release of their vehicles on interim custody. It is further

submitted that vehicle is to be released in favour of the owner or in favour of a

person in whose favour agreement to sell or power of attorney has been executed

by registered owner. If the vehicle is released in favour of a person who does not

possess the requisite documents, that will against the mandate of Motor Vehicles

Act and Rules. In the present case, petitioners have failed to produce requisite

documents. Hence, prayed for rejection of both the petitions.

(6) In the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs.State of Gujarat reported

in (2002) 10 SCC 283, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following

provisions as to how to release vehicle and it is profitable to reproduce 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.''

(7) 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.

(8) On perusal of record, it is apparent that the present petitioners are the

registered owners of seized vehicles (dumpers) and till date, no any information

has been received regarding confiscation proceedings of seized vehicles. The copy

of receipts filed along with petitions reflect that petitioners have already deposited

the aforesaid penalty amount. Whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep

such seized vehicles at 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 security for return of said vehicles to

petitioners on interim custody, if required at any point of time.

(8) In the light of above judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as

the judgments passed by this Court and after taking into consideration the

submissions made the petitioners' counsel, it is directed that if each of the

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

before the 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 the trial

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

to the petitioners on interim custody during pendency of the trial, subject to

following conditions:-

(i) On verification of requisite documents pertaining to vehicles in question,

the same shall be released and be handed over to the custody of petitioners.

(ii) Petitioners will not make any change in the appearance of vehicles in

question;

(ii) They shall not create third party rights over the vehicles in question;

(iv) They shall produce the vehicles before the trial Court/ Magistrate, as

and when demanded, on their own cost;

(v) It is made clear that after release of vehicles, if same nature offence or

any offence is committed by using these vehicles, 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 vehicles 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 petitioners shall keep the vehicles present positively for

confiscation. If confiscation proceedings have already been started, then this

order shall have no force.