Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1150 (MP)

Ram Bharose Sahariya v. State Of M. P.

2020-10-21

SUJOY PAUL

body2020
JUDGMENT Sujoy Paul, J. - With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10.1.2020 (Annexure P/1), whereby, learned Additional Collector, Raisen has declined to hand over the interim custody of Scorpio MP-05 T 1593 to the petitioner. 3. By criticizing the aforesaid order, Shri Panjwani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has produced the registration certificate of the said vehicle. If the Additional Collector was not satisfied with the said document he could have asked for production of more relevant document and proof of ownership etc. Without considering this aspects, his application should not have been dismissed, moreso when the petitioner has already been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raisen on 20.01.2019. He has placed reliance on the judgments of the apex Court in the case of General Insurance Council and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, (2010) 3 SCC(Cri) 226 and in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2003) AIR SC 638 . Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to produce the documents relating to ownership of the vehicle and relevant security on which the vehicle may be given on "Supurdgi". 4. Shri Hora, learned Panel Lawyer prays for three fold submissions: (i) In view of the order passed in M.Cr.C.No.4240/2018, the impugned order is appealable; (ii) the petitioner is not produced the proof of ownership and relevant document before the authority below; and (iii) if this Court deems it proper to release the vehicle on Supurdgi, the said order may not affect the final confiscation proceedings and its outcome. 5. No other point is raised by the parties. 6. I find substance in the arguments of Shri Hora, learned Panel Lawyer. Unless proof of ownership of the vehicle is not filed before the authority below, the authority below was justified in not entertaining the request of release of vehicle on interim custody. However, in both the judgment cited by Shri Panjwani, learned counsel for the petitioner, it was made clear by the apex Court that it is totally unnecessary to keep the vehicle in custody when it can be ensured by putting necessary conditions, the owner can be bound to produce the vehicle on the date fixed for evidence etc. However, in both the judgment cited by Shri Panjwani, learned counsel for the petitioner, it was made clear by the apex Court that it is totally unnecessary to keep the vehicle in custody when it can be ensured by putting necessary conditions, the owner can be bound to produce the vehicle on the date fixed for evidence etc. The photographs of the vehicle etc. can also be taken which can be used at the time of evidence. 7. Considering the aforesaid, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order dated 10.01.2020, Annexure P/1 and send the matter back to learned Additional Collector, Raisen for reconsideration. If the petitioner files relevant documents showing ownership, the learned Additional Collector on his satisfaction may release the vehicle by putting necessary conditions and by taking necessary security. 8. Needless to emphasis that the such an order of learned Additional Collector of Supurdagi (if any) will not adversely affect the final outcome of the confiscating proceedings. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. 10. C.C. as per rules.