Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2023
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 2 nd OF AUGUST, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14787 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
SURENDRA DUBEY S/O SHRI MATHILI SARAN DUBEY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRIL. R/O
VILL. BAGHEDARI ABBAL, DISTRICT SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AKSHAT KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION KARERA, DISTRICT SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, MADHAV
NATIONAL PARK, S H I V P U R I . (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA - PP )
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashment of order dated 17/10/2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Karera in criminal revision No. 6/2016 whereby the revision preferred by
petitioner against the order dated 23/10/2012 passed by respondent No. 2;
whereby, confiscation proceedings have been initiated for confiscation of
offending tractor No. MP33A2685 with trolley and offending vehicle has been
declared as govt. property, has been dismissed as not maintainable.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 15/3/2012, an Informer gave
an information to Game Ranger, Karera Sanctuary on the basis of which he
alongwith staff and police reached at Chandpatha Ghat on Mahuar River at 6.30
pm and found a unnumbered tractor filled with sand. Driver Ghanshyam was on
spot. Tractor alongwith trolley and articles used for filling the tractor were
seized under the Wile Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short "Act of 1972") and
a case was registered vide Crime No. 236/2005 for offence under Section 35(8)
39-D, 50 and 51 of Wile Life Act. Petitioner is the owner of the tractor-trolley.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no case is
made out against the petitioner as no criminal act has been committed with the
tractor of petitioner and petitioner is having no relation with the offence. The
order dated 23/10/2012 regarding confiscation is out of jurisdiction and till
finalization of criminal case in conviction, respondents are having no power to
pass any order of confiscation of vehicle of petitioner. It is further submitted
that driver of the vehicle has already been acquitted the the criminal trial and
therefore, since no offence has been proved, vehicle cannot be seized. In
support of his arguments he relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in the
matter of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Ors. Vs. J.K.Johnson
and Ors., AIR 2012 SC 61 as well as of this Court in the matter of Laxmi
Chand Vs. State of M.P., (1996) Cr.L.J. 1118 a n d Chetak Logistic
Limited Vs. State of M.P., (Criminal Revision No. 2405/2022 decided on
9/1/2022).
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned
orders and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
Heard.
In the instance case, Game Ranger, Karera on an information of
extraction of sand illegally, seized the tractor trolley filled with sand and filed a
complaint before the Court of Karera under Section 27 and 29 of the Act of
1972 against the driver of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle namely
Ghanshyam Singh has been acquitted vide judgment dated 8/6/2018 on the
ground that the place from where the sand was being extracted is not proved to
be an area under the Karera Sanctuary.
During pendency of confiscation proceedings before the Trial Court
(Magistrate), respondent No. 2 under the provisions of Section 39 (1) (d) of
Act of 1972 has declared the seized tractor and trolley as govt. peroperty vide
order dated 23/10/2012. Against the said order, in year 2016, a criminal revision
was preferred and learned ASJ, Karera vide order dated 17/10/2016 dismissed
the revision as not maintainable. After dismissal of revision, this petition has
been filed on 26/12/2016.
From perusal of proceedings and orders so passed, it is clear that
competent authority has passed a detailed order after giving reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and found extraction and transportation
of sand illegally. Against the order passed by respondent No. 2, as per the
provisions of Section 58 (O) of Act of 1972, appeal would like; however, no
such proceedings has ever been filed; whereas, perusal of order dated
12/8/2015 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 1254/2013, a petition filed by petitioner under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23/10/2012, makes it clear that
said petition was dismissed as withdrawal with liberty to approach the
appropriate forum for appropriate proceedings. There is a clear finding in the
order of trial Court that effecting party can approach competent authority for
release of vehicle under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. No appeal has been preferred
against the said order under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. as such the order passed
by trial Court (Magistrate) attained finality and no relief against the said order
can be provided to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner moves in
different factual realm and therefore are of no help to him in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case as discussed above.
Cumulatively, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
JPS/-
JAI
Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
PRAKASH
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec
865c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a,
pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290EC8
CB2193780D8357,
SOLANKI
serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B80
72A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6
B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
Date: 2023.08.04 09:57:31 +05'30'
