Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 130 (MP)

Amarnath v. State of M. P.

2016-02-17

SUBHASH KAKADE

body2016
ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This application under section 482 of CrPC is directed against the order dated 28.4.2015 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur, in Criminal Revision No.50/2015, arising out of order dated 8.4.2015, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class Burhanpur in Criminal Case No.3803/2015, dismissing the application of the applicant filed for granting Supurdginama of Container (Ashok Leyland) being Registration Number HR 38 Q 6145. 3. As per the prosecution case, the alleged vehicle of the applicant was seized due to illegal transportation of cattle. Thereafter, a criminal case punishable under 4, 6 and 9 of M. P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam and section 11 (Gha) of Pashu Krurta Sanrakshan Adhiniyam was registered against the accused person. The applicant has filed an application under section 451 of the CrPC for releasing the offending vehicle on interim custody on Supurdginama, which has been dismissed by learned Magistrate. The revision petition filed by the applicant was also rejected by the revisional Court, hence this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that the revisional Court as well as learned Magistrate while passing the impugned orders have failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested with them and committed grave error of law in holding that the aforesaid vehicle cannot be given on Supurdginama as the vehicle was being used in a heinous offence of slaughtering of cattle. It is further submitted that if the seized vehicle be kept for a long time in open space, it will be damaged by vagaries of weather. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the application on the ground that the vehicle is subjected for confiscation and seized for the offence, which is serious in nature. It is nowhere disputed in the impugned order that the applicant is not the registered owner of the vehicle concerned or the same is claimed by any other person also. 5. Provisions of sections 451 of Criminal Procedure Code provides power to the Court to pass an appropriate order for interim custody and for disposal of seized property pending trial where the property is subjected to natural decay and looking to the other circumstances, to the owner of the property. 6. 5. Provisions of sections 451 of Criminal Procedure Code provides power to the Court to pass an appropriate order for interim custody and for disposal of seized property pending trial where the property is subjected to natural decay and looking to the other circumstances, to the owner of the property. 6. No fruitful purpose will be served by retaining the vehicle during pendency of the trial or during confiscation proceedings, rather it will diminish the value of the said vehicle, when the applicant is ready to produce the vehicle as and when called by the authorities, then certainly the vehicle concerned can be given on interim custody of the registered owner. It is futile to lay the vehicle idle in the police station or any other unsecured place when the vehicle concern not kept in the secured place i.e. garage there is every possibility of it being damaged by vagaries of weather. 7. There is no bar that the property cannot be released looking to the seriousness of the offence. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and others, reported in (1999)5 SCC 670 , held that interim custody of the seized or to be confiscated vehicle cannot be denied to a person who is registered owner, on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under section 60 of the Act. 8. Keeping in view above facts and circumstances of the case, and further in the light of the decision in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase (supra), the impugned orders dated 28.4.2015 and 8.4.2015 are hereby quashed. It is directed that seized Container (Ashok Leyland) being Registration Number HR 38 Q 6145 shall be delivered to the applicant on Supurdginama subject to producing the original registration certificate, permit and further on satisfying the following conditions :- (i) That, the applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on an undertaking to produce the said vehicle before the trial Court as and when required. (ii) That, the applicant shall got the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. (ii) That, the applicant shall got the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer, who will be deputed by the trial Court and to be kept in the file of the case. (iii) That, the personal bond of the applicant as well as surety shall carry the photographs of both and the bond of surety shall further carry the photograph of person identifying her before the Court which would be with full residential proof of the surety and the person identifying her. (iv) The applicant shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and not to lease it to any one and not to alienate or create any third party interest and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make identifiable. (v) The applicant will not allow the vehicle to be used for any anti-social activities. (vi) In the event of confiscation order by the Court competent, the applicant shall keep the vehicle present positively for confiscation. 9. With the aforesaid, this application stands allowed. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial Court/the authority concerned for necessary compliance.