Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 33 (MP)

Deepak Singh v. State of M. P.

2018-01-09

SUSHIL KUMAR PALO

body2018
ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of the CrPC has been filed to assail the order dated 5.12.2017, passed by learned Third ASJ, Sidhi, wherein the order passed by the learned JMFC, Sidhi, in Criminal Case No.176/2017, has been affirmed. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that, the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle truck bearing registration No.-MP-53-HA/2005. Registration certificate has been produced in this regard. The alleged vehicle was carrying sand and was overloaded. On 9.11.2017, Police Station, Sidhi, intercepted the vehicle and seized the same and the sand. The gross weight of the vehicle with sand was 34,920 kgs., whereas the permit was for 16 tons. The weight of the unloaded truck was 9 tons. Therefore, about 90,920 kgs. was overloaded. It is also alleged that the sand was being stolen. Therefore, offence under section 379 of the IPC, sections 4 and 21 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, sections 3 and 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and 113 and 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been registered against the accused persons, including the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has filed application for interim release of the vehicle on "Supurdginama" before the learned JMFC, Sidhi which was decided on 14.11.2017. Criminal Revision No.195/2017 filed before the Third ASJ, Sidhi, was decided on 5.12.2017 and the order passed by the learned JMFC, Sidhi, has been affirmed. 4. The petitioner has preferred this petition for interim release of the vehicle on Supurdginama on the ground that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was carrying 34.14 metric tons of sand, whereas the permit was for only 16 tons. The petitioner has also produced the insurance certificate. It is also contended that the petitioner is not likely to misuse the possession of the vehicle. If the vehicle is kept in an open place, it will be subjected to decay and the petitioner will be put to loss. 5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State opposed the contentions. 6. On perusal of the record it is found that offence is registered under sections 3 and 4 of the Representation of the People Act, but the papers do not show as to why the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the said Act has been registered. 7. 5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State opposed the contentions. 6. On perusal of the record it is found that offence is registered under sections 3 and 4 of the Representation of the People Act, but the papers do not show as to why the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the said Act has been registered. 7. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, [(2002) 10 SCC 290], Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed the the vehicle be released on supurdginama within a period of 15 days from the date of its seizure. If the vehicle is kept in an open place, it will be damaged and caused notional loss. 8. In the case of State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao, [ 2008(1) JLJ 427 = (2008) 14 SCC 624 ], Hon'ble the Supreme Court has reiterated that the vehicle can be released on interim supurdginama till the disposal of the case. 9. Keeping in view the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. 10. It is directed that vehicle truck bearing registration No. MP-53-HA/2005 be given to the petitioner on "Supurdginama", subject to production of the original registration certificate and insurance certificate. Accordingly, it is ordered that the vehicle bearing registration No. MP-53- HA/2005, seized in Criminal Case No.176/2017, be released to the petitioner till the disposal of the case or the final disposal of the confiscation proceeding, if any, before the Forest Department, whichever is earlier on the following terms and conditions : (i) That, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven 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 petitioner shall get the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number of the vehicle. 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. (ii) That, the petitioner shall get the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number of the vehicle. 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 petitioner as well as surety shall carry the photographs of both and the bond of surety shall further carry the photograph of person identifying him before the Court which would be with full residential proof of the surety and the person in defying him. (iv) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and shall not lease it to anyone and not make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable. (v) The petitioner will not allow the vehicle to be used any anti-social activities. (vi) In the event of confiscation order by the Court competent, the petitioner shall keep the vehicle present positively for confiscation. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court concerned for necessary compliance.