Mohd. Asim vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Petitioner/applicant has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 1.8.2018, passed by II Addl. Sessions Judge Burhanpur, in S.T.No.17/2018, whereby learned Addl. Sessions Judge refused to release the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-61-B/0783 on Supurdginama to the petitioner/applicant.

2 : As per prosecution, on 14.3.2018, cow progeny were transporting for slaughter. Police official seized the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-61-B/0783 with cow progeny. Driver was driving the vehicle. Number plate HR-55-U/7545, was affixed on the truck. Two other number plates are also found in the said truck, so it appears that accused person was driving the truck bearing registration No. HR-61-B/0783 by changing number plates. In the said truck 56 cow progeny were seized and one cow was found dead. Case was registered against the petitioner/applicant under Sections 467 of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam 2004" for short), Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Animals Cruelty Act" for short) and Sections 420, 467, 468,471 and 429 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short). Intimation was given to Collector Burhanpur for initiating confiscation proceeding of seized truck. Petitioner/applicant filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. to release the said vehicle, but learned trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that offence is of serious nature and confiscation proceeding has been started.

3 : Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant submits that petitioner/applicant is registered owner of container/truck bearing registration No. HR-61-B/0783. The said vehicle was taken on loan from the Finance Company and petitioner/applicant is regularly paying monthly instalments. The said truck is lying in an open place in Police Station and if the said vehicle will not be released on Supurdginama, then the said vehicle will be destroyed. Learned Court below has not considered this legal aspect that finalisation fo the Criminal Case will take long time for its final conclusion. It is held by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court that once the Criminal Case is pending confiscation proceeding should not be held and finalised. So, learned trial Court gravely erred in rejecting the application of petitioner/applicant to release the vehicle on Supurdginama in favour of registered owner. The applicant is the owner of the said vehicle. He will abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court. He will also not sold and destroy the said vehicle and modify the same, so considering the legal aspect, the order of Court below be set aside and release the container/truck bearing registration No.HR-61-B/0783 to the petitioner/applicant on Supurdginama during the pendency of Criminal trial.

4 : Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State submits that proceedings of confiscation has been initiated with regard to the said vehicle. The said vehicle is involved for transporting cow progeny for slaughtering, so learned trial Court has not committed any error in passing the order and no interference in the order is warranted.

5 : Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. It is evident that container/truck bearing registration No.HR-61-B/0783 is seized for transporting the cow progeny for slaughtering. It is also admitted fact that one Ibrahim, son of Hussain Mansoori and Rashid son of Ismail were named in the FIR. Case under Section 469 of the Adhiniyam, 2004, Section 11 of Animals Cruelty Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 429 of IPC was also registered, so petitioner/applicant is not an accused in the said crime. Petitioner/applicant has also produced the registration, insurance, fitness certificate with regard to the seized vehicle bearing registration No. HR-61-B/0783. It appears that the petitioner/ applicant is registered owner of the seized vehicle bearing registration No. HR-61-B/0783. It is true that confiscation proceeding has been initiated by the District Magistrate Burhanpur with regard to the seized vehicle. But, it is settled position of law that learned trial Court is competent to release the vehicle. This Court in the case of Mehmood V. State of M.P. [2017 (II) MPWN 54] has held as under :-

"6. After considering the various judgments including the judgment of Sheikh Kaleem (supra) and Raees vs. State of M.P. [2013 (5) MPHT 233], judgment of co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramniwas vs. Game Range Chambal Santuary, Bhind, Headquarter, Ambah, District Morena [2012 (2) MPLJ 661], the Court framed following two questions :-

¦............................ (i) whether, under MP Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam and Rules made thereunder known as MP Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 confiscation proceeding can continue parallel to the criminal proceeding pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate; and (ii) whether, an order, ordering confiscation of the vehicle and cow progeny can only be passed after conclusion of trial before the Judicial Magistrate in which it was held that offence under the Act was committed and the vehicle was used for transporting cow progeny for slaughtering.

The Court answered the questions as under :-

¦.................. In this view of the matter, the questions framed in para 4 may be answered thus:-

(i) The proceedings for confiscation before the District Magistrate can continue, however, no final order can be passed.

(ii) Final order in the proceedings can be passed only after conclusion of trial before the Judicial Magistrate in which it was held that offence under the Act was committed and the vehicle was used for transporting cow progeny for slaughter.

In view of the opinion expressed by this Court, it is apparent that revisional Court misconceived the principles laid-down in the case of Raees (supra) and Sheikh Kaleem (Supra) and revisional Court erred in dismissing the revision. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and revisional Court in aforesaid matters are set-aside. The District Magistrate, Ujjain is at liberty to continue proceedings for confiscation, however, the confiscation proceedings shall be subject to outcome of trial and only when it was found that the vehicle was used in commission of crime, the vehicle shall be confiscated.

6 : In view of the foregoing discussions, it is evident that no useful purpose would be served to keep the seized vehicle in open place or Police Station during trial. Petitioner/applicant is registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-61-B/0783, so revision is allowed. The order of learned trial Court is hereby set aside. Learned District Magistrate Burhanpur is at liberty to continue proceeding for confiscation, but confiscation proceeding shall be subject to outcome of trial and only when it was found that commission of crime, the vehicle shall be confiscated. It is directed that vehicle bearing registration No. HR-61-B/0783, be handed over to the registered owner on his furnishing security and supurdginama to the tune of Rs.20 lacs (Rupees Twenty Lacs) to the satisfaction of condcerned Judge on the following conditions :-

(i) Petitioner/applicant will not alienate or transfer the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-61-B/0783 during pendency of the trial or till the confiscation proceedings are completed.

(ii) Petitioner/applicant will not commit crime under the provisions of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratished Adhiniyam, 2004, till the matter is decided.

(iii) Petitioner/applicant shall also not change its appearance, colour etc.

(iv) Petitioner/applicant shall produce the vehicle whenever and wherever he is directed to so so by the trial Court or District Magistrate as the case may be. Breach of the conditions would entail cancellation of this order automatically.

7 : In view of the aforesaid, the revision stands disposed of.