Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 September, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 26th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35031 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MAHENDRA S/O LALSINGH, AGED ABOUT
27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
KESHARPURA, TEHSIL JAWAD DISTRICT
NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR MEENA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION JAWAD DISTRICT
NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI VISHAL SANOTHIYA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
...................................................................................................
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1] Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2] The petitioner has filed the present Misc. Criminal Case under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the impugned order dated
24.4.2023 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch,
District-Neemuch in Cr.R. No. 66/2023 whereby, the learned Judge has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time: 9/27/2023
5:24:06 PM
rejected the criminal revision of the petitioner and confirmed the order
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neemuch in Criminal
Case No. 260/2023 on 26.5.2023 rejecting the application filed by the
petitioner for grant of interim custody of the seized vehicle under
Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.
3] Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner happens to be the owner of the seized vehicle bearing
registration no. MP-47-CA-0901, which had been seized by the police
on the allegation of transportation of 138.24 bulk liters illicit liquor.
Counsel has relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in
M.Cr.C.No.13541/2023 dated 5.9.2023 wherein, counsel has also
relied upon the other decisions rendered by this Court holding that in
case, where the criminal case is still pending, confiscation proceeding
can't be initiated, as the confiscation can only take place after the
person is convicted. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order be
quashed and the vehicle be released.
4] Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has
opposed the prayer. However, it is not denied that there are no other
criminal case registered against the petitioner.
5] After considering the submissions made by counsel for both the
parties, it is noticed that the vehicle of the petitioner has been seized for
the offence under section 34 (2) of M.P. Excise Act on the allegation of
transportation of illicit liquor.
6] The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Santosh S/o
Tulsiram Jaiswal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others, (Writ
Petition No.1037/2016) vide order dated 13.05.2016, while relying
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time: 9/27/2023
5:24:06 PM
upon a decision dated 13.07.2015 rendered by this Court in the case of
Sheikh Kaleem vs. State of M.P., (Writ Petition No.1296/2015), has
set aside the order of confiscation and has directed the respondents to
release the vehicle on the ground that confiscation can only take place
after the person is convicted. In the case of Premdas Vs. State of M.P
and others reported in 2013(1) MPJR SN 10, co-ordinate Bench of this
Court has held that vehicle cannot be confiscated by the department so
long, as the criminal case is pending. The judgment rendered by Full
Court of this Court in the case of Madhukar Rao Vs State of M.P.
reported in 2000(1) JLJ, 304 has been confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of M.P Vs. Madhukar Rao reported in
2008(1) JLJ 427, where it has been held that when criminal case is
pending, final order with regard to the forfeiture of the vehicle should
not be passed.
7] In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order
directing confiscation and forfeiture of the vehicle is unsustainable and
it cannot be done until and unless the criminal proceedings are
finalized. In the present case, as the criminal proceedings are still
pending, action impugned cannot be sustained.
8] As the vehicle in question is in custody of respondent and
possibility of vehicle to be destroyed, cannot be ruled out, interest of
justice requires that the custody of the vehicle be given to the owner on
certain conditions. Therefore, it is directed that seized vehicle bearing
registration no. MP-47-CA-0901 be released to the petitioner upon
verification of his ownership and on his execution of a personal bond of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with one surety in the like
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time: 9/27/2023
5:24:06 PM
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the following
conditions :-
(i) The vehicle shall be produced before the trial Court or before
the District Magistrate as and when directed ;
(ii) The petitioner shall not alienate or part with the possession of
the vehicle during the pendency of the proceeding for confiscation
or criminal trial;
(iii) The external appearance of the vehicle shall not be changed in
any manner so as to make it difficult to identify.
9] In light of aforesaid terms and conditions, present M.Cr.C. stands
disposed of accordingly.
(SUBHODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
moni
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time: 9/27/2023
5:24:06 PM
