Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 954 (MP)

Mewalal Sharma v. State of M. P.

2010-09-21

INDRANI DATTA

body2010
ORDER 1. Applicant has filed this revision under section 397/401 of CrPC for setting aside the order dated 6.8.2010 passed in MJC No. 1237/2001 by JMFC Lahar, District Bhind whereby application submitted by the applicant under section 451/ 457 CrPC for releasing the vehicle Tractor & Trolley bearing registration No.MP06A-7066 has been dismissed. 2. Loconically, the facts of the case are .that on 15.4.2010 on the basis of information received that Wheat which was to be distributed as per PDS Scheme is illegally unloaded in the premises of co-accused Ashok Singh for the purpose of black-marketing. Tahsildar Revenue Inspector and Patwari reached on spot and recovered Tractor & Trolley No. MP06-A-7066 carrying 40 quintal of Wheat and also recovered one Matador bearing No. MP30/H-0186 which never reached its destination. The Tractor & Trolley bearing registration No.MP06- A/7066 along with 40 quintal Wheat has been seized and FIR concerning Crime No. 3612010 has been registered against the applicant and other co accused under sections 379, 408, 420 IPC read with section 3/7 of E.C. Act. The applicant who is owner of aforesaid Tractor & Trolley bearing No. MP06N7066 filed application for seeking vehicle on Supurdgi under section 451/ 457 CrPC before the learned JMFC Lahar, District Bhind. That application has been rejected by the learned JMFC, giving rise to present revision. 3. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that impugned order dated 6.8.2010 passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law, illegal and unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. No confiscation proceedings have been started by the learned Collector concerning the above Vehicle as Collector can initiate confiscation proceedings only on the basis of inquiry report filed by authority and no inquiry report has been filed yet by the inspection authority till today. It is further submitted that alleged vehicle has not been seized in pursuance to violation of Control Order which made under section 3 of the E.C. Act. It is further submitted that alleged vehicle has not been seized in pursuance to violation of Control Order which made under section 3 of the E.C. Act. It is further submitted that for the sake of arguments if it is presumed that confiscation proceeding is pending before the Collector under section 6-A of E.C. Act even then seized vehicle cannot be confiscated as per Subsection (1) of section 6A of E. e. Act which provides that owner of such vehicle shall be given option to pay in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of essential commodity sought to be carried by such vehicle. 4. It is further urged that seized vehicle is kept in P')lice Station and possibility of damage to vehicle cannot be ruled out. On these grounds prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant drew this Court's attention to a citation in Rama Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P. 2010 (1) EFR 193. In that case, it is held even if it is presumed that proceedings under section 6A of E.C. Act are pending, release of vehicle should not be ignored. Furthermore, reliance is placed in G. Subbarama Naidu v. The Joint Collector, Chittor Dist. and others, AIR 1986 Andhra Pradesh 82. In that case also same view has been expressed. 6. Placing reliance on the above citations, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is entitled for interim custody of vehicle till disposal of the confiscation proceedings if initiated against him (though no confiscation proceedings have been initiated till today.) 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and prayed for its dismissal. 8. It is admitted fact that present applicant is registered owner of seized Tractor & Trolley for which Crime No. 37/2010 has been registered against him and co-accused. No document is available on record to assume that confiscation proceedings are started against the seized Tractor & Trolley No. MP06-A/7066. 9. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat, AIR 2003 SC 638 the Hon 'ble apex Court has held that powers under section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: - 1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of it remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. 9. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat, AIR 2003 SC 638 the Hon 'ble apex Court has held that powers under section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: - 1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of it 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 panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. It necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and 4. The jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tempering with the articles. 10. Considering the above legal aspect and the material available on record and considering the fact that applicant is registered owner of the seized Tractor & Trolley, no prolific purpose would be served by letting the vehicle idle in the Police Station for such a long period. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is having apparent perversity and as such it requires interference in this revision, hence the impugned order dated 6.8.2010 is set aside with a direction to the trial Court that Tractor & Trolley bearing No. MP06A/7066 be rekased on interim Supurdgi of applicant on his furnishing surety bond and personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with a condition that during investigation whenever required applicant will produce that vehicle and shall not alienate, dispose of or transfer that vehicle and also produce it before the Collector if confiscation proceedings are initiated concerning that vehicle and the aforesaid release of vehicle will be subject to outcome of confiscation proceedings, if initiated. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the revision is disposed of.