Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar Goyal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:877
1 MCRC-1176-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1176 of 2025
SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Mahesh Goyal - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Harish Sharma - Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.
ORDER
The present application under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. has been filed being aggrieved by the orders dated 20.12.2024 passed
in CRR No.84/2024 confirming the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the
trial Court, whereby the application for interim custody of the vehicle has
been rejected.
2. From a perusal of the documents placed on record, it is evident that
the truck of the applicant has been seized on 28.11.2024, which was alleged
to be loaded with DAP fertilizer, which was in contravention of provisions
of Essential Commodities Act and the control order framed under the said
Act of 1955, i.e. Fertilizer Control Order 1985 (now renamed as Fertiliser
(Organic, Inorganic or Mixed) Control Order 1985).
3. The trial Court has rejected the application for interim custody on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:877
2 MCRC-1176-2025
the ground that an offence under Section 218(4) BNS and 3/7 Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 so also under Fertilizer Control Order 1985 has been
registered in the matter at Crime No.316/2024 at Police Station Dabra Dehat,
District Gwalior. It has been considered by the trial Court that the matter is
under investigation by the police and during the course of investigation, there
may be requirement of the vehicle and therefore, it does not seem
appropriate to order release of the vehicle. The Revisional Court while
rejecting the revision of the applicant has held that as per Section 6-E
of Essential Commodities Act, there is a bar to jurisdiction of the Court
where confiscation proceedings have been initiated by the competent
authority and after initiation of confiscation proceedings, the Criminal Court
cannot order interim custody of the seized vehicle.
4. However, the Kaifiyat report which was produced before the
Magistrate while opposing the application for interim custody does not
mention anything about confiscation proceedings having been initiated by
the competent authority for confiscation of the vehicle. The police did not
state anything about confiscation proceedings of the vehicle pending while
opposing the application for custody. Even the Revisional Court in
paragraph 11 of the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 has recorded that it is
not clear from the record whether confiscation proceedings have been
initiated or not.
5. If the confiscation proceedings had been initiated, then there would
have been specific contention of the police before the Court. Neither before
the learned Magistrate nor before the learned Sessions Court in revision, any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:877
3 MCRC-1176-2025
contention was made regarding pendency of confiscation proceedings before
the competent authority so as to attract bar under Section 6-E of Act of
1955. There cannot be mere inference of pendency of confiscation
proceedings, in absence of specific contention of the respondents to that
effect before the Magistrate.
6. It is well settled that continued custody of vehicle in custody of
police or other statutory authorities amounts to destruction of the vehicle by
elements of nature, which is not in the interest of any of the parties.
Reference can be made to judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
o f Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat , 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943 :
AIR 2003 SC 638. In similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Mewa Lal Sharma vs. State of M.P. reported in 2011 (1)
MP LJ (Cri.) 371 has held that once no documents are shown before the
Court that confiscation proceeding are pending against the seized vehicle,
then it is futile to left the vehicle lie idle in the Police Station.
7. In the present case also nothing has been pointed out before the
Magistrate or before the Sessions Court regarding pendency of any
confiscation proceedings.
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that it
would be in the interest of justice to release the seized vehicle, i.e. Truck
No.RJ-11 GB-7199. However, with strict conditions so as to secure the
interest of the State in the event of any adverse order being passed by
Criminal Court or by the confiscating authority in future.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:877
4 MCRC-1176-2025
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned
orders are hereby set aside. It is directed that interim custody of vehicle, i.e.
Truck No.RJ-11 GB-7199 be delivered to the applicant on Supurdginama
subject to producing the original registration certificate, sale-letter and such
necessary documents, on satisfying the following conditions :-
(i) That, the applicant shall furnish a Bank Guarantee
favouring the District Magistrate, Gwalior, equal to the market
value of the seized truck on the date of seizure, which would be
not less than the value assessed in the last available insurance
policy prior to date of seizure. This Bank guarantee shall be
valid for atleast three years in the first instance and kept
renewed till pendency of trial and/or confiscation proceedings.
ii) The applicant shall undertake to produce the said
vehicle before the trial Court as and when required, or the
confiscating officer in event of confiscation order being passed.
(ii) The applicant shall undertake not to transfer the
ownership of the vehicle and shall not lease it to anyone and not
make or allow any changes in it so as to make it unidentifiable.
(iii) The applicant will not allow the vehicle to be used in
any anti-social activities.
(iv) In case of violation of the conditions mentioned
above, the District Magistrate concerned shall be at liberty to
invoke the Bank Guarantee.
10. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands allowed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj
