Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rekha Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 13022 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
REKHA BAI W/O SUBEER SINGH, AGED ABOUT 48
YEAR S , R/O VILLAGE JWALAPUR MAUJA RAJPUR,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANKUR MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FOREST
DIVISION MORENA AB ROAD, FOREST COLONY
MORENA DISTIRCT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE FOREST GAME RANGE OFFICER, GAME
RANGE SABALGARH, FORREST DIVISION
M O R E N A DISTRICT MORENA , (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SOHIT MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"i) That, the respondent No.2 and 3 may be directed to release
the seized vehicle tractor/trolley bearing registration No. MP31
AB 6099 on interim Supurdagi.
ii) That, respondent No.2 may be directed to decide the
application filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle on
furnishing bond within specified period.
iii) That, the respondents further directed to release the vehicle
with immediate effect.
iv) That, any other suitable direction which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly
be passed."
2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved
by the inaction on the part of the respondents authorities whereby they had
illegally seized the tractor/trolley bearing registration No.MP-31-AB-6099
without having any involvement in forest offence.
3. It was further submitted that the respondents had conducted an
enquiry through Superintendent National Chambal Sanctuary Sheopur and the
inquiry report reveals that the offending vehicle was not involved in any forest
offence and the sand which was recovered from the vehicle in question doesn't
belongs to Chambal River and therefore, it is not a forest produce. The inquiry
report further reveals that the sand belongs to a private agriculture land which
lay on the banks of the Seep River. Despite of the aforesaid inquiry report, the
respondents are not releasing the offending vehicle of the petitioner. Aggrieved
by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner had submitted an
application before the respondents authorities with a prayer that the vehicle in
question may be released on interim supurdagi by furnishing a bond in the light
of Section 53 of the Indian Forest Act, but the same has not been decided till
date.
4. It was further submitted that the respondents had illegally kept the said
vehicle at Police Station Dehat Thana for long due to which, the condition of
the vehicle is deteriorating day by day and no purpose would be served for
keeping the said vehicle for an indefinite period when no confiscation
proceeding has started.
5. In the context of release of vehicle on Supurdgi, counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
matter of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil Vs. State of Mysore reported
in [(1977) 4 SCC 358] wherein it has been held as under:-
" 4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the
Code appear to be that where the property which has been the
subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not
to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for
any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure
of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of
the property to a government servant, the idea is that the
property should be restored to the original owner after the
necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two
stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the
first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This
may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is
subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other
compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the
property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The
High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing
that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the
articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should
be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any
property which is in the control of the Court either directly or
indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and
proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its
disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the
direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at
every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore,
the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the
police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance."
6. The said judgment has been followed subsequently in numberof cases
including Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in
[(2002) 10 SCC 283] and General Insurance Council and Ors. vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in [(2010) 6 SCC 768]. That apart, this
Court in number of cases including M.Cr.C. No. 42346/2021 [Ramsevak
Singh Vs. State of M.P.] and M.Cr.C. No.52253/2021 [Dharmendra
Singh Vs. State of M.P.] has ordered for release of vehicles for the reasons as
indicated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment.
7. Learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed the prayer
so made by counsel for the petitioner and it was submitted that the offendng
vehicle subjected is seized for the offence under the Indian Forest Act, which is
serious in nature. Hence, he prays for rejection of the present petition.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record,
this Court is of the view that unless the vehicle is confiscated, during currency
of period of seizure pending proceedings for confiscation or otherwise, the
authority concerned must endeavor to release the vehicle on Supurdagi to rule
out the possibility of damage and deterioration in quality and value due to
various factors including exposure to weather conditions, regard being had to
its evidentiary value.
9. In light of the aforesaid, the said vehicle is liable to be released and is
accordingly, ordered to be released on following conditions:-
(i) It is ordered that on furnishing personal bond as per Section
5 3 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 before the authority
concerned, the aforesaid vehicle (tractor/trolley bearing
registration No. MP-31-AB-6099) shall be handed over to the
petitioner on Supurdginama on proving ownership of the same;
(ii) Whenever it would be required by the authority concerned,
the same will be produced on petitioner's own expenses at the
place as would be directed in this regard;
(iii) At the time of release of the vehicle on Supurdginama, the
Authority concerned shall ensure to take note of chassis
number, engine number and registration number of the aforesaid
vehicle and keep on record;
(iv) The petitioner shall not create any third party rights over the
aforesaid vehicle;
(v) The petitioner shall not fiddle with or scratch or erase
numbers engraved in the chassis and engine of the vehicle;
(vi) In the event, all or any of the aforesaid conditions are found
to have been violated, the respondents authorities are at liberty
to move this Court to such modification / variation of the order
passed by this Court today.
10. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
