Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 250 (MP)

Salman Khan v. State of M P.

2020-02-14

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2020
JUDGMENT Mittal, CJ. -- 1. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant-writ petitioner challenging an order dated 11.1.2019 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 9188/2018 (Salman Khan v. State of M. P. and Others). 2. There is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal as the appeal is barred by over 300 days. The appellant has filed an application (I. A. No. 2147/2020) under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. However, before deciding the application, few facts on merit may also be noticed. 3. The vehicle of the appellant has been confiscated vide order dated 30.6.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, District Tikamgarh, i.e., the respondent No. 3, in connection with an offence of illegal transporting of Gowvansh registered as Crime No. 92/2014 at Police Station, Khargapur, punishable under section 11 (1) gh, da, cha/26 of M. P. Gowvansh Krurta Adhiniyam, 1960 and sections 6 and 9 of M. P. Gowvansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004. The appellant-petitioner challenged the order of confiscation before the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, i.e., respondent No. 2, by filing an appeal under section 11-A of the M. P. Gowvansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.3.2018 (Annexure P-3). Being aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant preferred a writ petition inter alia on the assertions that both the impugned orders have been passed without proper appreciation and consideration of the facts and evidence as to the allegation involving offending vehicle. Before the learned single Judge, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the Commissioner lacks application of mind as the petitioner was never noticed by the Collector of the confiscation proceedings. The learned single Judge, vide order impugned herein, did not find any weightage in the argument as the impugned orders itself revealed that the petitioner was in full knowledge of the confiscation proceedings pending before the Collector and did not appear and place his case before the Collector despite notices having been issued to him and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. In this manner, this intra-Court appeal has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, both on the question of condonation of delay as well as on merits of the controversy. 5. In this manner, this intra-Court appeal has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, both on the question of condonation of delay as well as on merits of the controversy. 5. Before proceeding with the merits of the controversy, it would be essential to examine whether the appellant has been able to give any satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay of over 300 days in filing the present appeal. 6. The question as to whether there is sufficient cause or not depends upon the facts of each case and taking into totality of the events which had taken place in a particular case. In the present case, the appellant, in the application for condonation of delay, has taken the usual plea that his counsel did not inform him after passing of the order by the learned single Judge and therefore, the appellant was under the impression that the case was pending. The order dated 11.1.2019 came to the knowledge of the appellant only in the last week of January, 2020 when he came to Jabalpur and contacted his counsel and then, after obtaining certified copy of the order and engaging another counsel, the appeal has been filed, which has become time-barred. When the vehicle was seized by the police and put up before the respondent No. 3 for confiscation proceedings, the appellant has chosen to stay away from the proceedings and has not appeared before the respondent No. 3 despite notice and knowledge of the proceedings, and similar plea has been taken in the application that he was under the impression that writ petition was pending as the counsel has not informed him about the status of the petition. The appellant has challenged the confiscation of his vehicle, which was seized in connection with an offence. It is the case of the appellant that vehicle has been confiscated illegally and he is not even concerned with the alleged offence and that he is suffering heavy financial loss due to confiscation of his vehicle. In these circumstances, it is highly improbable that the appellant was not having any knowledge of the proceedings pending before this Court or that he was not informed by his counsel about dismissal of the writ petition. In these circumstances, it is highly improbable that the appellant was not having any knowledge of the proceedings pending before this Court or that he was not informed by his counsel about dismissal of the writ petition. If the appellant was suffering heavy financial loss due to confiscation of his vehicle, he should have been more vigilant and serious in pursuing the litigation. Thus, in our considered opinion, no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of inordinate delay. 7. The Supreme Court in R. B. Ramlingam v. R. B. Bhavaneswari [ (2009) 2 SCC 689 ] noticed that the Courts should adopt liberal approach where delay is of short period whereas the proof required should be strict where the delay is inordinate. Further, it was also observed that judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may not lay down any standard or objective test but is purely an individualistic test. The Court is required to examine while adjudicating the matter relating to condonation of delay on exercising judicial discretion on individual facts involved therein. There does not exist any exhaustive list constituting sufficient cause. The petitioner-appellant was required to establish that in spite of acting with due care and caution, the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and was inevitable. The appellant has miserably failed to satisfy the said test and the delay remains unexplained by tendering any sufficient and plausible explanation. 8. As regards the challenge to the order of the learned single Judge on merit is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned single Judge has not correctly appreciated the case on merit. The said argument is stated to be rejected. The learned single Judge has specifically observed that show cause notices were issued to the appellant by the Collector but the appellant did not appear and then challenged the order of confiscation before the appellate Court on the ground that no opportunity was given. The Collector has passed a detailed order on the basis of the evidence on record and confiscated the vehicle in public interest. 9. Apart from the above, the learned single Judge has dealt with the argument whatever was advanced on behalf of the appellant before him. The Collector has passed a detailed order on the basis of the evidence on record and confiscated the vehicle in public interest. 9. Apart from the above, the learned single Judge has dealt with the argument whatever was advanced on behalf of the appellant before him. The relevant observation of the learned single Judge reads thus: “The vehicle was seized by the police, was put up before the respondent No. 3 for initiation of confiscation proceedings. The order dated 30.6.2015, which has been impugned herein, has been annexed to the petition as Annexure P/1. The said order passed by the respondent No. 3 has been upheld by the respondent No. 2 in appeal on the grounds that the entire due process was followed by the Collector and that the petitioner, despite being given notice of the said proceedings, did not appear before the Collector in the confiscation proceedings and therefore, the case proceeded ex parte against him and evidence was recorded and order was passed by the Collector confiscating the said vehicle. It is further stated that the order of the Commissioner lacks application of mind, as the petitioner was never noticed by the Collector of the confiscation proceedings. This submission has been made notwithstanding the observation of the appellate Court very clearly disclosing the fact that the petitioner did not appear before the Collector despite notices having been issued to him. The order of the Collector, dated 30.6.2015, reflects in paragraph 3 that the petitioner had appeared before the Collector and moved an application under section 451 CrPC to secure custody of the vehicle during the pendency of the criminal case. The said application was dismissed. Thereafter, the case was listed for recording evidence in the confiscation proceedings. The order passed by the Collector clearly reflects that the petitioner was in full knowledge of the confiscation proceedings pending before the Collector and despite that did not appear and placed his case before the Collector.” 10. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the reasoning assigned by the learned single Judge. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal as well. 11. In view of the said fact, no case for condonation of delay is made out. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed and as a naturally corollary, the appeal is also dismissed.