Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 774 (MP)

Bhikhari Khan v. State of M. P.

2021-12-02

ROHIT ARYA

body2021
ORDER 1. This is an application, under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking indulgence in the matter of release of Tractor-Trolleys bearing registration numbers MP30-AA-5465 allegedly used in transportation of sand by way of committing theft. 2. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 5.10.2020 has rejected the application filed for release of the vehicles on Supurdginama under sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. The revisional Court has confirmed the order of the trial Court vide order dated 20.10.2020. 3. The Courts below have justified rejection of application on the premise that the aforesaid vehicles were not having valid transit passes at the relevant point of time, therefore, prima facie were involved in illegal transportation of sand. That apart, the Courts below opined that even after the offence has been compounded by the Collector vide order dated 30.7.2021 directing for release of the vehicle after imposing fine, still such vehicles used for commission of theft and illegal excavation and transportation of minerals are liable to be confiscated, as observed by this Court in W.P. No. 4686/2019 (Maniah Rishishwar v. State of M.P.) decided on 29.11.2019 and Mohd. Wasim v. State of M.P. (2018 (4) HCCD 2035). Accordingly, the application was rejected. 4. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the context of release of vehicle on Supurdgi, the Supreme Court in the case of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore ( (1977)4 SCC 358 ) has ruled as under:- “4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance.” 5. The said judgment has been followed subsequently in number of cases including Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat ((2002)10 SCC 283) and General Insurance Council and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., ( (2010) 6 SCC 768 , paras 12 to 15). 6. That apart, this Court in number of cases including M.Cr.C. No. 42346/2021 (Ramsevak Singh v. State of M.P.) and M.Cr.C. No.52253/2021 (Dharmendra Singh v. State of M.P.) has ordered for release of vehicles for the reasons as indicated by the apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. 7. Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and supported the impugned order. 8. 7. Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and supported the impugned order. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that unless the vehicle is confiscated, during currency of period of seizure pending proceedings for confiscation or otherwise, the competent Court must endeavor to release the vehicles on Supurdgi to rule out the possibility of damage and deterioration in quality and value due to various factors including exposure to weather conditions, unless of course the release of the vehicles in a way may affect trial, regard being had to its evidentiary value. 9. Now turning back to the factual matrix in hand, the offence under the M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules has been compounded by imposing penalty and the vehicles have been ordered to be released. 9. Now turning back to the factual matrix in hand, the offence under the M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules has been compounded by imposing penalty and the vehicles have been ordered to be released. In the case of pending trial for the offences punishable under section 379 of the IPC, continuance of seizure of vehicle may not be required and, therefore, relying upon the judgment of the apex Court quoted above, the vehicles are liable to be released and are, accordingly, ordered to be released on following conditions:- (i) It is ordered that on furnishing personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court by each one of the applicant, the aforesaid vehicle (Tractor-Trolley bearing registration number MP30-AA5465) shall be handed over to the respective applicant on Supurdginama on proving ownership of the same; (ii) whenever it would be required by the competent Court the same will be produced on applicant's own expenses at the place as would be directed in this regard; (iii) at the time of release of the vehicle on Supurdginama, the aforesaid Authority shall ensure to take note of chassis number, engine number and registration number of the aforesaid vehicle and keep on record; (iv) the applicant shall neither alter or change the condition of the aforesaid vehicle in any manner whatsoever during pendency of the litigation; (v) the applicant shall not create any third party rights over the aforesaid vehicle; (vi) the applicant shall not fiddle with or scratch or erase numbers engraved in the chassis and engine of the vehicle; (vii) in the event, all or any of the aforesaid conditions are found to have been violated, the respondent / State is at liberty to move this Court to such modification / variation of the order passed by this Court today. With the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.