Mewalal Sharma vs State of M.P.

Indrani Datta, J.

Heard.

With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard at motion hearing stage itself.

Applicant has filed this revision u/s 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 06.08.2010 passed in M.J.C. No. 1237/2001 by JMFC Lahar, District Bhind whereby application submitted by the applicant u/s 451/457 Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the vehicle Tractor & Trolley bearing registration No. MP06A-7066 has been dismissed.

Laconically, the facts of the case are that on 15.04.2010 on the basis of information received that Wheat which was to be distributed as per PDS Scheme is illegally unloaded in the premises of co-accused Ashok Singh for the purpose of black-marketing. Tehsildar Revenue Inspector and Patwari reached on spot and recovered Tractor & trolley No. MP06A-7066 carrying 40 quintal of Wheat and also recovered one Matador bearing No. MP30/H-0186 which never reached its destination. The Tractor & Trolley bearing registration No. MP06A/7066 alongwith 40 quintal Wheat has been seized and FIR concerning Crime No. 36/2010 has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused u/s 379, 408, 420 IPC read with Section 3/7 of E.C. Act. The applicant who is owner of aforesaid Tractor & Trolley bearing No. MP06A/7066 filed application for seeking vehicle on Supurdgi u/s 451/457 Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned JMFC Lahar, District Bhind. That application has been rejected by the learned JMFC, giving rise to present revision.

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that impugned order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the learned trial court is bad in law, illegal and unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. No confiscation proceedings have been started by the learned Collector concerning the above Vehicle as Collector can initiate confiscation proceedings only on the basis of inquiry report filed by authority and no inquiry report has been filed yet by the inspection authority till today. It is further submitted that alleged vehicle has not been seized in pursuance to violation of Control Order which made u/s 3 of the E.C. Act. It is further submitted that for the sake of arguments if it is presumed that confiscation proceeding is pending before the Collector u/s 6A of E.C. Act even then seized vehicle cannot be confiscated as per Sub-section (1) of Section 6A of E.C. Act which provides that owner of such vehicle shall be given option to pay in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of essential commodity sought to be carried by such vehicle.

It is further urged that seized vehicle is kept in Police Station and possibility of damage to vehicle cannot be ruled out. On these grounds prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

Learned Counsel for the applicant drew this Court''s attention to a citation in Rama Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P. 2010 (1) EFR 193. In that case it is held that even if it is presumed that proceedings u/s 6A of E.C. Act are pending, release of vehicle should not be ignored. Furthermore, reliance is placed in G. Subbarama Naidu Vs. The Joint Collector, Chittoor Dist. and Others, . In that case also same view has been expressed.

Placing reliance on the above citations, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is entitled for interim custody of vehicle till disposal of the confiscation proceedings if initiated against him (though no confiscation proceedings have been initiated till today).

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and prayed for its dismissal.

It is admitted fact that present applicant is registered owner of seized Tractor & Trolley for which Crime No. 37/2010 has been registered against him and co-accused. No document is available on record to assume that confiscation proceedings are started against the seized Tractor & Trolley No. MP06A/7066.

In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujarat, he Hon''ble Apex Court has held that powers u/s 451 Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely

Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

The jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

Considering the above legal aspect and the material available on record and considering the fact that applicant is registered owner of the seized Tractor & Trolley, no prolific purpose would be served by letting the vehicle idle in the Police Station for such a long period. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is having apparent perversity and as such it requires interference in this revision, hence the impugned order dated 06.08.2010 is set aside with a direction to the trial Court that Tractor & Trolley bearing No. MP06A/7066 be released on interim Supurdgi of applicant on his furnishing surety bond and personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with a condition that during investigation whenever required applicant will produce that vehicle and shall not alienate, dispose of or transfer that vehicle and also produce it before the Collector if confiscation proceedings are initiated concerning that vehicle and the aforesaid release of vehicle will be subject to outcome of confiscation proceedings, if initiated.

With the aforesaid direction, the revision is disposed of.