Pushpendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16744 MP

                                                      1
                 IN         THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT GWALIOR
                                              BEFORE
                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                        ON THE 10 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                   MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38586 of 2023

               BETWEEN:-
               PUSHPENDRA S/O SHRI PRABHUDAYAL LODHI, AGED
               ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
               VILLAGE SIRSOD POLICE STATION AMOLA DISTRICT
               SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....PETITIONER
               (BY SHRI S.B.LODHI- ADVOCATE)

               AND
               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
               STATION AMOLA DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA
               PRADESH)

                                                                                .....RESPONDENT
               (BY SHRI NITIN GOYAL- PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)

                           This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
               following:
                                                       ORDER

Petitioner has filed present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 16.8.2023 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, Distt. Shivpuri, in Criminal Revision No.62/2023 whereby the order dated 24.1.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karera, Distt. Shivpuri in RCT No.500/2023 by which the application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for release of tractor bearing registration No.MP 33 AC 7251 of Mahindra Company model No.275 DI along with Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD trolley, which was involved in illegal transportation of sand and vide crime Signing time: 11-10-2023 11:01:26 AM

No.2/2023 offence under Section 379, Section 4(1)/21(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act and Sections 146/196, 77/177(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, was rejected, was affirmed.

2.Brief facts of the case are that one tractor bearing registration No.MP 33 AC 7251 of Mahindra Company model No.275 DI along with trolley is of the ownership of the petitioner. On 3.1.2023 the said vehicle was apprehended by the police Station Amola in crime No.2/2023 registered under Section 379, Sections 4(1)/21(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act and Sections 146/196, 77/177(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. As the said vehicle was kept in open at the police station due to which the engine of the said tractor is getting rusted

and as the petitioner is an agriculturist and requires the said tractor trolley for his day-to-day work, therefore, an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. was filed seeking interim custody of the said tractor which was rejected by the trial Court. Against the said rejection order, the petitioner preferred a revision which was numbered as 62/2023 which also got dismissed vide order dated 16.8.2023, against which the present petition has been filed.

3.It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. Registration certificate and other requisite documents have been filed in support of the contention. It was contended that if the vehicle is kept at the police Station, then the condition thereof would get diminished due to weathering and as the said vehicle is the only source of his livelihood being agriculturist, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. It was further submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are contrary to the provisions of law and the same are Signature Not Verified liable to be quashed, as the same is passed in anticipation of confiscation of the Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 11-10-2023 11:01:26 AM vehicle as per the Mines and Minerals Rules. It was further argued that learned

trial Court as well as the Revisional Court have erred in rejecting the application for release of the vehicle holding that because the petitioner has deposited the penalty as imposed by the Mining Department, would not absolve him from his criminal liability which has been levelled against him, and therefore, the vehicle cannot be released. Hence, it was submitted that impugned orders passed by the Courts below deserve to be quashed and the vehicle is required to be released.

4.On the other hand, counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of this petition. It is submitted that due to illegal activities carried out by the petitioner with the use of vehicle in question serious threat/ damage to the riverbeds is being caused which is seriously jeopardizing the habitats of marine life. It was further argued that the vehicle in question has been used for illegal purpose, and therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the application on interim custody.

5.Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

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 the same as under:-

''However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate Signature Not Verifiedwould take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are Signing time: 11-10-2023 11:01:26 AM not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not

more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.''

7.On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the present petitioner is the registered owner of seized vehicle and till date no information has been received regarding confiscation proceedings of seized vehicle. 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 or guarantee or security for return of said vehicle to petitioner on interim custody, if required, at any point of time.

8.In the light of above judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and after taking into consideration the submissions made by petitioners' counsel, it is directed that if the petitioner furnishes a bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) to the satisfaction of trial Court/ Magistrate concerned, then the possession of vehicle in question be given to the petitioner on interim custody during pendency of the trial after verification of the requisite documents pertaining to the ownership of the vehicle in question, subject to the following conditions:-

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

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

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

(iv) It is made clear that after release of vehicle the petitioner shall not Signature Not Verified commit same nature of offence by using the said vehicle. Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 11-10-2023 11:01:26 AM (v) This order shall remain in force till final disposal of the case pending

before trial Court/ Magistrate and at the time of final disposal of the case, the trial Court/Magistrate will be at liberty to pass appropriate order with regard to vehicle in question in accordance with law without getting influenced by this order.

(vi) In the event of confiscation order by the competent authority or the Collector, the petitioner shall keep the vehicle present positively for confiscation.

With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ms/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 11-10-2023 11:01:26 AM