Ram Bharose Sahariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6700 MP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6700 MP
Judgement Date : 5 May, 2022

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ram Bharose Sahariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2022

Author: Sujoy Paul

                                      1
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT JABALPUR
                                     BEFORE
                             SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                              ON THE 5th OF MAY, 2022

                      MISC. PETITION No. 1556 of 2021

         Between:-
         RAM BHAROSE SAHARIYA S/O SHRI BRAJ
         MOHAN SAHARIYA , AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
         OCCUPATION: RET. FROM ORDNANCE FACTORY
         ITARSI R/O PILIKHANTI BEHIND MALVIYA
         HOSPITAL, HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                        .....PETITIONER
         (BY SHRI DEEPAK PANJWANI, ADVOCATE)

         AND

1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO.
         COLLECTOR DISTT. RAISEN (M.P.) (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

2.       STATE OF M.P. THR.P.S             MADIDEEP RAISEN
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
         (BY SHRI A. S. BAGHEL, DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

      T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                        ORDER

With the consent finally heard.

This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court for release of his Scorpio vehicle by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The petitioner's vehicle Scorpio MP-05-T-1593 is seized for committing offence under the Excise Act. The petitioner filed an application before the Additional Collector, Raisen for handing over the interim custody of said vehicle. The learned Additional Collector by order dated 10/01/2020 rejected the said application. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed MP No.1843/2020 decided on 21/10/2020 (Annexure P/3). This Court after taking into account relevant Supreme Court Judgments opined that it is totally unnecessary to keep the vehicle in custody when it can be ensured by putting necessary conditions that owner shall produce the vehicle whenever necessary. Since the petitioner did not furnish proof of ownership, this Court permitted the petitioner to file relevant documents showing

ownership and directed learned Additional Collector to reconsider the application/prayer of the petitioner.

In turn, petitioner by application dated 23/11/2020 (Annexure P/4) filed the proof of ownership. The learned Additional Collector thereafter passed the

impugned order dated 17/02/2021. Criticizing this order, Shri Panjwani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the necessary parameters for release of vehicle on interim custody were satisfied. The authority below has rejected the application on irrelevant consideration.

The prayer is opposed by Shri Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. The impugned order dated 17/02/2021 shows that learned Additional Collector verified the ownership of petitioner about said vehicle. The authority below considered the report of concerned Police Station wherein it is opined that the matter related to an activity which is anti-social in nature and, therefore, Police Station did not recommend release of vehicle.

The point involved in this case is more res integra. The Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujrat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, recorded as under :-

"15. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, a number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to their owners or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.

16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over the vehicle to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the persons concerned.

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.

19. For articles such as seized liquor also, prompt action should be taken in disposing of it after preparing necessary panchnama. If sample is required to be taken, sample may be kept properly after sending it to the Chemical Analyser, if required. But in no case, large quantity of liquor should be stored at the police station. No purpose is served by such storing."

The aforesaid paras clearly show that the vehicle can be released on supurdginama subject to the final outcome of the matter. No useful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle in custody for an indefinite period.

Shri Panjwani, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that confiscation proceedings are still pending.

Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 17/02/2021 cannot be permitted to stand and is accordingly set aside. At the time of considering the prayer for giving the vehicle on interim custody, the Court below was not required to enter into the merits of the case.

Considering the aforesaid, the Court below is directed to take appropriate surety from the petitioner and by imposing necessary conditions, release the vehicle on 'supurdginama'.