Bhupendra Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This revision petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2019 (Annexure-A-9) passed by the Court

of JMFC Rampur Naikin District Sidhi whereby, the application filed by the applicant for receiving the seized vehicle/truck on temporary custody has

been dismissed.

Facts giving rise to this revision, in short, are that on 01.07.2018, at the time of night patrolling, sub-Inspector of Police Station Rampur Naikin received

an information that near village Ghughanta some persons are trying to theft the sand of reserve century Songhadayal Project of Sone river and illegally

transporting the sand. Sub-Inspector along with Head Constable, Constables Rajesh Tiwari, Vivek Singh and Anil Yadav, reached to the spot and

found that one truck not exhibiting the registration number was transporting the sand, stopped that truck but inspite of stopping the truck, the driver

speeded the truck but after chasing at some distance stopped the truck and asked for the documents. However, nothing has been produced by the

truck driver Harish Kumar Saket and on the basis of chassis and body number seized the truck and thereafter, registered the Crime No.337/2018 at

Police Station and send the information to the Forest Department and Mining Department of the concerned district. The applicant being registered

owner of the truck filed an application for taking the seized vehicle in temporary supurdagi.

Learned Court of JMFC Rampur Naikin vide order dated 31.08.2018 (Annexure-P-5) rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 457

of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant preferred a revision before the revisional Court i.e. IInd Addl. Sessions Judge Sidhi link Court

Rampur Naikin, the same was dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2018. Being aggrieved by both the dismissal orders, the applicant filed an application

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order of dismissal passed by both the Court below registered as M.Cr.C. No.39969/2018, the same

was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2019 with a direction that if any confiscation proceedings about the truck in connection with

forest department or mining department has been initiated, then the truck should not be given in temporary possession to the applicant and if there is no

confiscation proceedings initiated by any of the department, then the truck should be given on temporary custody of the applicant.

In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.39969/2018, the learned trial Court after hearing the applicant, again dismissed of the

application vide order dated 04.04.2019 by mentioning that under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, the proceedings of confiscation of the seized

truck has already been initiated and it is pending before the competent Authority. The Court of JMFC not having jurisdiction to provide temporary

possession of the seized truck under Section 52 (c) of the Indian Forest Act.

The applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2019 preferred this petition on the ground that the Court of JMFC has committed illegality and

perversity while passing the impugned order.

After hearing both parties and on perusal of all the documents filed along with the petition as well as the case diary of Crime No.337/2018 registered

at Police Station Rampur Naikin, the competent Authority of the Forest Department started the proceedings of confiscation of the vehicle bearing

registration no.MP-53-HA-1847 having the same chassis and engine number which is mentioned in this petition. Meaning thereby, the confiscation

proceedings has been initiated and is pending before the competent Authority.

On perusal of the case diary, it reveals that the notice has already been issued in the name of applicant for submission on his part. If any proceedings

of confiscation has been initiated as per Section 52 (c) of the Indian Forest Act, then Court of JMFC is not empowered to provide the applicant

temporary possession of the seized truck.

 Learned counsel for the applicant submit the order of this Court dated 27.08.2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.29451/2018 (Deepak Singh vs. The State

of M.P.). In the cited case this Court has not considered the point that proceedings of confiscation under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act has been

started against the seized vehicle, therefore, the fact of that case and the facts of present case is totally on different footings.

On the basis of foregoing discussions, this Court find that the learned trial Court has not committed any gross illegality in rejecting application for

providing the vehicle on temporary custody to the applicant. There is no material ground before this Court to invoke the inherent powers envisaged

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, the revision petition being devoid of any merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the

costs.