Madhya Pradesh High Court

Narayan Singh Jatav vs The State 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 58678 OF 2021

                 Narayan Singh Jatav Vs. State of MP and Anr.


               ==================================
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain counsel for petitioner Narayan Singh Jatav.
Smt. Abha Mishra, Public Prosecutor for the State.
               ==================================
Reserved on                                  10/01/2022
Whether approved for reporting              ........../...........
               ==================================
                                    ORDER

(Passed on 19/01/2022)

Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J:-

Petitioner has filed this petition u/S. 482 of CrPC for quashment of order

dated 18/11/2021 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District

Shivpuri (MP) in Criminal Revision No.86 of 2021 confirming the order dated

12/10/2021 passed by JMFC, Karera, District Shivpuri in MJCR No.296/2021

(RCT) whereby the application filed by petitioner u/S. 451/457 of CrPC for

release of his vehicle tractor-trolley bearing registration No.MP33AB3660 on

interim custody has been rejected.

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

incident i.e. 04/08/2020, the tractor-trolley of petitioner was seized in connection

with Crime No.480 of 2020 registered at Police Station Karera for commission

of offence 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, the driver of tractor-trolley was

arrested and a penalty was imposed. It is submitted that the petitioner is the

registered owner of said vehicle. He had filed an application before the District

Mining Officer and on his application, offence under Sections 4A and 21 of the

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

of Rs.10,000/-. After deposit of said penalty amount, a direction was issued to

Police Station Karera for release of seized vehicle of petitioner. Afterwards, the

matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was

filed. Petitioner, thereafter, filed an application u/S. 451/457 of CrPC before the

Court of JMFC to get the vehicle on interim custody, however, the same was

rejected vide impugned order. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a criminal

revision and the revisional Court vide impugned order dismissed his revision.

Hence, this petition.

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

the registered owner of seized vehicle. Registration certificate and other requisite

insurance papers of the said vehicle have been filed in support of contention. It is

further submitted that vehicle if keeps in the police station concerned, then same

will get damaged due to weather condition. Petitioner is the peaceful citizen of

village concerned and the vehicle is only source of his livelihood and if the

vehicle is 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any

condition which may be imposed by this Court. It is further submitted that the

impugned orders passed by the 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 the Minor Mineral Rules, 1996.

The petitioner has already deposited the penalty amount of Rs.10,000/-.

Conclusion of trial will take some time and only offence 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 on

interim custody to the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that after considering all

the facts and imposing stringent conditions, the vehicle in question may be

released on interim custody during pendency of the trial. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that since the offence has been compounded by the District

Mining Officer by imposing a penalty under Sections 4A and 21 of the Act, now

there is no criminal liability against the petitioner. Therefore, the seized vehicle

is 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 the petitioner 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 vehicle in question has been used

for illegal purpose, therefore, considering the gravity of offence, the Courts

below have rightly passed the impugned orders while rejecting the application

filed by the petitioner u/S.451/457 CrPC for release of vehicle on interim

custody. It is further submitted that the 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 the 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 the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. Hence, prayed for

rejection of this petition.

(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 petitioner is the

registered owner of seized vehicle and till date, no any information has been

received regarding confiscation proceedings of the seized vehicle. The copy of

receipt filed along with petition reflects that petitioner has already deposited

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

seized vehicle 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 vehicle to

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

(9) 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 by petitioners' counsel, it is directed that if the petitioner

submits a 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 trial Court/

Magistrate concerned, then the possession of vehicle in question be given to the

petitioner interim custody during pendency of the trial, subject to following

conditions:-

(i) On verification of requisite documents pertaining to the vehicle in

question, the same shall be released and be handed over to the custody of

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.