Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul @ Rohit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9704
1 MCRC-28454-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28454 of 2024
RAHUL @ ROHIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Choubey - GA for the State.
ORDER
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of
the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the IVth Additional Session Judge,
Chhindwar, District Chhindwara in Cr.R. No.25/2024 arising out of the order
dated 02.05.2024 passed by CJM, Chhindwara Districrt Chhindwara in
connection with Criminal Case No.127 of 2024 whereby the application
moved by the applicant under Sections 497 and 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for releasing the vehicle bearing registration
No.MH-31-EA-0434 on supurdginama, has been declined.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that present applicant
moved an application for releasing the TATA Indica Car bearing registration
No.MH-31-EA-0434 on supurdginama. The said vehicle has been seized by
the Police in view of a registration of a case under Section 34(2) of M.P.
Excise Act. During pendency of the trial, an application was moved for
release of the vehicle in favour of the present applicant as he is registered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9704
2 MCRC-28454-2024
owner of the alleged vehicle, yet, the said application has been declined
while observing that as the Court has received an intimation as regards the
confiscation of the vehicle, therefore, the powers to release the vehicle in
question on supurdginama cannot be exercised. The said order was
challenged by filing a revision, but the Revisional Court has also dismissed
the same. It is contended by the counsel that the order of confiscation cannot
be passed unless there is judgment of conviction in the original case. In the
present case, as of now, there is no conviction under Section 34(2) of M.P.
Excise Act, therefore, vehicle in question ought to have been released in
favour of the present applicant as, the condition of the vehicle is going to be
deteriorated in prolong custody of the police. Thus, counsel submits that the
order impugned deserves to be set aside.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and
supported the order passed by the Trial Court, which is impugned in the
petition. It is contended by the counsel that the vehicle in question is subject
matter of an offence which is committed under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise
Act and an intimation was received by the Court that the confiscation
proceedings were initiated and thus, by virtue of Section 47-A of the M.P.
Excise Act, the Court is precluded from releasing the vehicle on
supurdginama in favour of the present applicant.
4. Having considered the submissions, a perusal of the record reflects
that it is undisputed that the present applicant is the owner of the vehicle in
question and as of now, there is no conviction under Section 34(2) of M.P.
Excise Act and merely pendency of the confiscation proceedings cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9704
3 MCRC-28454-2024
made basis to decline the applicant's prayer for release of the vehicle. The
registration certificate has been brought on record as Annexure-A/3. The trial
Court has dismissed the application only on the ground that as the
confiscation proceedings are proposed, therefore, the vehicle cannot be
released. (Plz. See Suresh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2003 (1) MPLJ 638
and Prakash Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. and Another reported in ILR
(2018) MP 2782)
5. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in
AIR 2003 SC 638, the Apex Court in paragraphs 15,16,17 and 18, has held
as under:
"15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia,
appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that
at present in the police station premises, number of
vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk
day by day. It is his contention that appropriate
directions should be given to the Magistrates who are
dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles
to its owner or to the person from whom the said
vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the
guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required
by the Court at any point of time.
16. However, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners submitted that this question of handing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9704
4 MCRC-28454-2024
over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to
its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of
arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.
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 the 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9704
5 MCRC-28454-2024
vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should
be prepared."
6. Considering the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court in the
aforesaid cases including the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) and
the material available on record, this Court is inclined to allow the petition
as the findings so arrived at by the trial Court suffers from perversity.
Undisputedly, there is no conviction in terms of Section 34(2) of M.P.
Excise Act, therefore, the vehicle in question is required to be released.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 31.05.2024 and
02.05.2024 are set aside. The vehicle bearing registration No.MH-31-EA-
0434.
i. The applicant shall furnish "Supurdginama" to the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and a surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for releasing the vehicle in question.
ii. The applicant shall also furnish an undertaking that he shall produce
the vehicle in question as and when required during the trial.
iii. The applicant shall not alienate the same or make use of such
vehicle for any unlawful purpose during pendency of the case.
iv. An undertaking shall also be given by the applicant that the
machinery and nature of the vehicle in question shall not be changed.
v. The applicant will not allow the vehicle to be used for commission
of any other offence and anti-social activities.
vi. In the event of confiscation order by the Court/competent authority,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9704
6 MCRC-28454-2024
the applicant shall produce the vehicle positively for confiscation."
8. With the aforesaid directions, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and
disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Hashmi
