Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 730 (MP)

Nanduji Nayak v. State Of M. P.

2016-08-23

S.K.PALO

body2016
ORDER : Mr. Lal Ji Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S. K. Shrivastava, learned P.L. for respondent/State. This petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed, assailing the order dated 17-3-2015, passed by 1st ASJ, Khandwa, in Criminal Revision No. 38/2014, whereby order dated 24-2-2014, passed by learned JMFC, Harsood, District Khandwa in Criminal Case No. 753/2013 has been affirmed. 2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for the decision of the petition are that, P.O.R. No. 4142/2013 under section 26/1/J (sic), 66-Ka (66-A), 69 of the Indian Forest Act has been registered involving the cultivation of four hectares of land owned by NVDA and showing of Soyabean with the help of two tractors. 3. When the petitioners filed an application under section 457 of Criminal Procedure Code before the learned JMFC the same was dismissed. In criminal revision No. 138/2014, learned 1st ASJ, Khandwa, affirmed the order and dismissed the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners claimed that the petitioners are the owners of the Tractors in question. Petition No. 1-Nanduji has filed a sale letter of Mahendra Tractors and Certificate of registration issued in favour of applicant No. 2 by RTO, Khandwa. It is further claimed that the Tractors are kept in open, and there is every chance of rust/damaging, which will cause huge loss to the applicants. Therefore, they pray that the Tractors be released on ‘Supurdnama’. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the Tractors, and there has been no order till date regarding confiscation of the Tractors by the District Magistrate. 6. Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State opposed the petition, and contented that the order passed by Court below is well merited and does not call for any interference. 7. The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Madhukar Rao vs. State of M.P. reported in 2000(1) M.P.L.J. (F.B.) 289 has clearly and unambiguously held that the property seized on accusation or suspicion of commission of an offence can be released pending trial, no confiscation order can be passed before the final disposal of the criminal case. If the accused is held convicted then only the vehicle so seized can be confiscated. 8. If the accused is held convicted then only the vehicle so seized can be confiscated. 8. In the resent case of Premdas vs. State of M.P. reported in 2013(2) M.P.L.J. 218 , this Court has held that since the criminal proceedings are still pending the confiscation cannot be sustained. In another case Sunderlala Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 the Hon’ble Apex Court following the guidelines issued under Paragraphs No. 17 to 21, has held that the Magistrate has to pass orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security of the said vehicle, if required to any point of time. Direction have been issued to dispose the petition within a period for not more than 15 days to one month and, if the owner of the vehicle is not known or there is no claimant, such vehicle may be auctioned by the Court. Keeping the photographs of the vehicle and details of ‘Panchnama’ prepared in this regard. 9. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the Tractors and the Cultivators in question. This petition is allowed. The order dated 17-3-2015, passed by 1st ASJ, Khandwa, in Criminal Revision No. 38/2014, and order dated 24-2-2014, passed by learned JMFC, Harsood, District Khandwa in Criminal Case No. 753/2013 are set aside. It is directed that the Tractors bearing No. MP-12-AB-5826 and Mahendra Tractor 575, DI, having Chassis No. CO-5556238 (AND) Engine No. 006502320C with cultivator MP-10-3476 be released on ‘Supurdnama’ after keeping in the record, the photographs of the Tractors and preparing receipt of delivery of the vehicle subjected to the following conditions : 1. after verification of the ownership record of the petitioners and keeping photographs of the same; 2. on furnishing a ‘Supurdnama’ of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) each and bail bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court; 3. the petitioners will not change or tamper the engine and chassis numbers. 4. the petitioners will not replace any part of the vehicle except for necessary repairs. 10. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. C.C. as per rules.