Ramesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4181 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2024

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                                            1
                          IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                            ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3958 of 2024

                         BETWEEN:-
                         RAMESH S/O BHATUNATH SHINDE,
                         AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
                         OCCUPATION: LABOURER
                         R/O. VILLAGE DEVJHIRI COLONY,
                         SENDHWA, DISTRICT BARWANI
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPLICANT
                         (SHRI HARSHVARDHAN PATHAK - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                               STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
                               POLICE STATION WARLA
                               DISTRICT BARWANI
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH
                               DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BARWANI
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                         (SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

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

Heard.

By this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.12.2020 (Annexure-A/1) passed by Collector cum District Magistrate, District Barwani, confiscating his vehicle bearing registration No.MP

46 G 0566 for violation of provisions of Sections 4,6,9 and 13(D) of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam 2004 (herein after referred to as 'Adhiniyam 2004').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the aforesaid offence the petitioner has already been acquitted by judgment dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sendhwa, District Barwani, hence the very basis of the confiscation order has been taken away in view of which there is no justification for keeping the vehicle of the petitioner under confiscation. He has also relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Abdul Vahab vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr.A. No.3200/2022

(SLP (Cri)8964/2019) decided on 04.03.2022, particularly paragraph 21 to submit that the confiscation of vehicle of the petitioner who has been acquitted in the criminal prosecution amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his private property. Counsel, hence, submitted that the impugned order be set aside.

3. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle and the criminal trial are distinct and independent of each other and merely for the reason that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings, the order of confiscation would not come to end automatically. It is further submitted that the impugned order is an appealable order under the provisions of Adiniyam, 2004 hence this petition is not liable to be entertained bypassing the alternate remedy. The impugned order was passed in December, 2020 and this petition has been preferred more than 3 years thereafter, which hence deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Undisputedly, for the offence under the Adhiniyam, 2004 the petitioner was prosecuted and has been acquitted by the

criminal Court by judgment dated 25.09.2023. The impugned order was passed prior to the date of the said judgment. As per decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abdul Vahab (Supra) the effect of acquittal in the criminal case ought to be taken into consideration in the confiscation proceedings. While it is true that the impugned order was passed in the year 2020 but the fact remains that subsequent thereto the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal trial, which would be a relevant factor for considering whether his vehicle still deserves to remain under confiscation.

5. In my opinion the Collector is required to consider the fact of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, which is a subsequent event in view of which, the petitioner is not required to resort to the alternate remedy of challenging the impugned order as provided under the Adhiniyam, 2004.

6. As a consequence, the Collector cum District Magistrate, District Barwani is directed to reconsider the matter of confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioner by taking into consideration the judgment dated 25.09.2023 passed by the criminal Court acquitting the petitioner and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Abdul Vahab (Supra). The said exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

This petition is accordingly, disposed of.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE sumathi