Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 255 (MP)

Vikramaditya Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-02-28

R.S.JHA

body2014
Judgment: R.S. Jha, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission and I.A. No. 888/2014 for grant of tractor on Supurdnama. The applicant has filed this application being aggrieved by order dated 1-8-2013 by which the applicant's application for release of the applicant's tractor No. MP 53 M/1080, which was seized for commission of forest offences, has been rejected. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the application are that the tractor of the applicant was seized by the police authorities as it was found extracting sand illegally from the Son-Ghadiyal Sanctuary. The applicant thereafter remained absconding and filed an application through a Power of Attorney holder seeking exemption from appearance by filing a certificate issued by some Ayurvedic doctor, which did not mention that the applicant was physically unfit for appearing before the Court below or was bedridden. The Court below, taking into consideration the seriousness of the offences, the antecedents and the aforesaid aspect, has rejected the application filed by the applicant by the impugned order dated 1-8-2013. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is willing to deposit the security amount. He also states that his tractor is in custody since long and, therefore, it be released on Supurdnama. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, it is observed that the tractor has been seized for a serious offence of illegally extracting sand from Son Ghadiyal Sanctuary thereby destroying the breeding ground of the Ghadiyals. From the record, it is also clear that there are several cases against the applicant in this regard including beating up of Government officers while they were performing their duties. It is, therefore, clear that the possibility of the applicant again utilising the vehicle in question for commission of similar offences is not ruled out. That apart, the applicant was deliberately absconding before the Court below and has filed a medical certificate which has not been found to be reliable by the Court below. 5. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in an identical matter this Court by order dated 13-11-2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 11367/2013 has released a tractor, which was seized, by relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Madhukar Rao Vs. State of M.P., 2000 (1) MPLJ 289 (FB). 6. 5. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in an identical matter this Court by order dated 13-11-2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 11367/2013 has released a tractor, which was seized, by relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Madhukar Rao Vs. State of M.P., 2000 (1) MPLJ 289 (FB). 6. At the outset, the contention of the applicant regarding parity deserves to be rejected as the facts involved in the present case are totally different from the facts involved in the case relied upon by the applicant. Quite apart from the above, the reliance placed by the applicant on the Full Bench decision in the case of Madhukar Rao (supra), which has subsequently been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P., and others Vs. Madhukar Rao, (2008) 14 SCC 624 , is also misplaced and misconceived as the aforesaid case dealt with final confiscation and declaration of property as Government property without conducting any enquiry or taking up proceedings by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 39 of the Wild Life Protection Act, whereas the present case is not one of confiscation or declaration of property without enquiry. On the contrary, in the present case, the applicant's tractor and trolley have been seized during the pendency of the investigation before the authority and the applicant has filed an application under Section 457, Cr.P.C. for release of the seized property during the enquiry or trial and the Court while taking into consideration the facts prevalent in the applicant's case has rejected the application under Section 457, Cr.P.C. and has refused to grant interim custody of the tractor and vehicle to the applicant. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. K. Krishnan, (2000) 7 SCC 80 , has held that a liberal approach for release of vehicles or implements involved in forest offences should not be adopted by the Courts and the same should not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of the proceedings in respect of such offence including confiscatory proceedings except in exceptional cases, in the following terms:-- 7...... The liberal approach in the matter would perpetuate the commission of more offences with respect to the forest and its produce which, if not protected, is surely to affect the mother-earth and the atmosphere surrounding it. The liberal approach in the matter would perpetuate the commission of more offences with respect to the forest and its produce which, if not protected, is surely to affect the mother-earth and the atmosphere surrounding it. The Courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the Act enacted for the purposes of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. The forests are not only the natural wealth of the country but also protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere. We are of the considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a Court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition. No party shall be under the impression that release of vehicle would be possible on easier terms, when such vehicle is alleged to have been involved in commission of a forest offence. Any such easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat commission of such offences. Its casualty will be the forests as the same cannot be replenished for years to come. 8. The same view has again been reiterated and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of W.B. Vs. Gopal Sarkar, (2002) 1 SCC 495 and State of West Bengal and another Vs. Mahua Sarkar, (2008) 12 SCC 763 , and in fact the Supreme Court has gone on to state that the High Courts concerned had wrongly released the vehicle. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and looking to the peculiar facts of the present case and the seriousness of the offence and the antecedents of the petitioner, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Court below rejecting the petitioner's application for release of the vehicle. 10. 10. I also do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle be permitted to be released on furnishing adequate security looking to the antecedents of the petitioner; the fact that several cases have been registered against him; the act of beating up Government officers while undertaking proceedings against him and the possibility of the petitioner again using the vehicle for commission of forest offences. Any such approach would be contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cited cases. In view of the aforesaid, the application filed by the applicant, being meritless, is accordingly, dismissed.