[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12350
1 MCRC-15425-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15425 of 2026
BANWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Pallav Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar - PP for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
against the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by Sessions Judge, Session Block,
District Morena in Criminal Revision No.30/2026, whereby the revision
preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 20.02.2026
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Morena has been affirmed
by which application under Section 503 of BNSS filed by the petitioner was
rejected for taking the possession of the seized vehicle (Tractor-Trolley) on
supurdginama.
2 . The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that FIR was
registered against the petitioner at Crime No.9917/2022 by National
Chambal Sanctuary, Deori, District Morena for the offences punishable
under Sections 27, 29, 50, 51, 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act and
Sections 41, 52 of Indian Forest Act, alleging that Tractor Trolley bearing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12350
2 MCRC-15425-2026
registration No.MP06-AB-1014 belonging to the petitioner was involved in
illegally transporting sand from Chambal River.
3 . The petitioner claims to be registered owner of the said Tractor
Trolley bearing Registration No.MP06-AB-1014. It is further submitted that
petitioner filed an application under Sections 503 of BNSS before the Trial
Court for releasing the aforesaid vehicle which was dismissed vide order
dated 20.02.2026. Being aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Revision was
also preferred which has also been dismissed by the Revisional Court, as
indicated above. Hence, this petition has been preferred.
4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the
owner of the said vehicle and the aforesaid vehicle is in custody of Police
and is lying in open sky while it requires continuous maintenance from time
to time and if it is kept locked, the engine and other parts of the said vehicle
will be out of order and the same will become useless for any work. There is
no use of keeping the said vehicle in police custody for years till the trial is
over. Trial is not likely to conclude in near future and may take long time. In
such circumstances, it would be just and proper to release the said vehicle of
the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no
use of keeping the said vehicle in police custody for years till the trial is
over. Trial is not likely to conclude in near future and may take long time. In
such circumstances, it would be just and proper to release the said vehicle of
the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12350
3 MCRC-15425-2026
6 . On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer and
submitted that the Court below has rightly rejected the application. He
further submits that no palpable error on the face of record has been pointed
out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the order impugned. The said
vehicle would be required during the trial for describing the nature of the
property in detail, therefore he prays for dismissal of the instant petition.
7 . Heard the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and
perused the documents appended thereto.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Sundar Bhai Ambalal Desai vs. State
of Gujrat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has laid down the procedure for
disposal of the valuable items like currency, liquor, vehicle and narcotics
drugs and has held as under :-
"Powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised
expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes,
namely:-
1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its
remaining unused or by its misappropriation.
2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the
article in safe custody;
3. If the proper panchanama before handing over
possession of article is prepared, that can be used in
evidence instead of its production before the Court
during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be
recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail;
and
4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence
should be exercised promptly so that there may not be
further chance of tampering with the articles.
9 . On bare reading of the said dictum laid down by the Apex Court,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12350
4 MCRC-15425-2026
Section 451 of Cr.P.C. clearly empowers the court to pass appropriate order
with regard to such property, such as
(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or
trial;
(2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording
such evidence as it think necessary;
(3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to
dispose of the same.
1 0 . The Apex Court in the case of Sundar Bhai (supra) has
further held as under :-
"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."
11. Apex Court in the case of General Insurance Council and others
Vs. State of A.P. And others reported in 2010 AIR (SCW) 2967 has held as
under :-
"15. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when
vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only
they occupy substantial space of thepolice stations but upon being
kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of
weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road
worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than
fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common
knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said
vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalized so that the vehicles
become unworthy of being driven on road. To avoid all this, apart
from the aforesaid directions issued hereinabove, we direct that all
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12350
5 MCRC-15425-2026
the State Governments/ Union Territories/Director Generals of
Police shall ensure macro implementation of the statutory
provisions and further direct that the activities of each and every
police stations, especially with regard to disposal of the seized
vehicles be taken care of by the Inspector General of Police of the
concerned Division/Commissioner of Police of the concerned
cities/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district."
12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Court below did not take into consideration that keeping the said vehicle in the
police custody for a long period is of no use. The condition of the seized vehicle
is deteriorating day by day as the same is lying in open sky and under the heat of
sun and rains. The vehicle looses its value day by day due to lack of maintenance,
natural wear and tear and passing of time. The Court below ought to have passed
appropriate orders by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security
for return of the vehicle.
13. Taking into consideration the fact that ownership of the petitioner
is not in dispute, therefore, this petition is allowed and it is directed that on
proving ownership of the seized Tractor-Trolley bearing
Registration No.MP06-AB-1014 by the petitioner and on furnishing a cash
surety of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs Only) in the form of fixed deposit
in a nationalized bank or Bank Guarantee along with Supurdginama of
Rs.2,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/Trial Court, the
aforesaid Tractor-Trolley bearing Registration No.MP06-AB-1014 be
released on Supurdginama, subject to following conditions:-
(1) That, the petitioner shall produce the said Tractor-Trolley
bearing Registration No.MP06-AB-1014 before the trial Court as
and when directed to do so;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12350
6 MCRC-15425-2026
(2) That, in the meantime, he shall not alienate the aforesaid
vehicle or make use of the same for any unlawful purpose;
(3) That, he shall not carry out any change in the colour and
outward appearance of the said vehicle.
1 4 . With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Rashid
