Madhya Pradesh High Court
Imran Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52958 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
IMRAN KHAN S/O WAJID KHAN, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O VILLAGE SALIYA
TEH, BADODIYA, DISTRICT SUJALAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SANJAY GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR P.S.
DISTT. BURHANPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATION HOUSE INCHARGE BURHANPUR
GANPATI NAKA , BURHANPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. PREETI SINGH - ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking
quashment of the order dated 18-11-2020 passed by III Additional Sessions
Judge, Burhanpur in Criminal Revision No.52/2020, whereby the revisional
Court has dismissed the revision, arising out of the order dated 23-10-2023
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burhanpur in Criminal Case
No.1062/2022 whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application
moved on behalf of the petitioner under Section 457 of the CrPC for release of
the vehicle owned by the petitioner on "Supurdginama" bearing registration
No.MP-09-GH-4011.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
vehicle in question was confiscated by the respondents in connection with
Crime No.271/2020 for the offence punishable under sections 4,6, 9 and 11 of
the M.P. Govansh Pratishedh Adhiniyam. It is contended by the counsel that
the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question which is lying in
custody of the respondents since 2020. Therefore, taking into consideration the
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
Vs. State of Gujrat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638S the custody of the
vehicle requires to be delivered to the petitioner on "Supurdginama".
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the vehicle in question was
seized in commission of the cognizable offence and, therefore, the same cannot
be released in favour of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the State
does not dispute that apart from the present offence, the said vehicle was not
involved in commission of any of the offences in the past.
4. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, in
the present case the petitioner undisputedly, is the registered owner of the
vehicle in question, except the petitioner no one has claimed the custody
thereof. The issue as regards releasing of the confiscated vehicles on
"Supurdginama" was taken into consideration by the Apex Court in Sudervbhai
(supra) wherein, in paras 17, 18 and 21 ruled thus :
"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. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by
the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by
third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be
auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with
t h e insurance company then insurance company be
informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle
which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If
Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles
may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court
would pass such order within a period of six months
from the date of production of the said vehicle before the
Court. In any case, before handing over possession of
such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said
vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should
be prepared.
* * *
21. However these powers are to be exercised
by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the
concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for
seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are
properly and promptly exercised and articles are 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."
5. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court reflects that no
fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle in custody as likelihood
of deterioration of the vehicle cannot be ruled out.
6. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case
of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) as well as the present petitioner is the
registered owner of the vehicle in question, and apart from the petitioner,
undisputedly no one has claimed custody of the vehicle, therefore, the claim of
the present petitioner for interim custody ought to have been entertained by the
Courts below. The Courts below ought to have exercised the powers under
Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), while granting custody of the
vehicle including key and documents to the petitioner therein who claimed
owner-ship.
7. Accordingly, the order impugned orders dated 23.10.2020 and
18.11.2020 are set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
The trial Court is directed to release the vehicle i.e. Tata Truck bearing
registration No.MP-09-GH-4011 along with key and documents on
"Supurdginama" to the petitioner during trial, subject to following conditions:-
1. The petitioner shall furnish "Supurdginama" to the sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Only) and a surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for releasing the vehicle
in question.
2 . The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking that he shall
produce the vehicle in question as and when required during the
trial.
3. The applicant shall not alienate the same or make use of such
vehicle for any unlawful purpose during pendency of the case.
4 . An undertaking shall also be given by the petitioner that the
nature of the vehicle in question shall not be changed without prior
permission of this Court
5. Ap a rt from the above, it is further directed that before
releasing the vehicle in interim custody of the applicant, the S.H.O.
of concerning police station shall get photographs sized 18 x 12
inches of the concerned vehicle taken from all sides and also the
photographs showing engine number and chassis number. Such
photographs shall be filed in the trial Court to be kept along with
the record.
8 . With the aforesaid directions, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and
disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
