Pushpendra Kumar Bais vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Subhash Kakade, J.—Heard on admission. Admit.

Though case diary is not available, but sufficient documents are there on record so with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 03.05.14 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi in Forest Offence No.6784/15, whereby the application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed for releasing of vehicle Tractor No. MP 18 AA 8232.

The prosecution story in short is that aforesaid forest offence case was registered for offence under Sections 27, 29, 39 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and Section 2, 5 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act because above mentioned vehicle was found in protected area of Son Ghadiyal Abhyaran and the same has been seized. The applicant has filed an application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing the aforesaid vehicle on interim custody on Supurdginama, which has been dismissed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that the learned Court below while passing the impugned order has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested with him and committed grave error of law in holding that the aforesaid property cannot be given on Supurdginama as confiscation proceedings had been started. It is further submitted that if the seized vehicles be kept for a long time in open space at the forest range premises, it will be damaged by vagaries of weather.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the application on the ground that the vehicle is subjected for confiscation and seized for the offence, which is serious in nature.

It is nowhere disputed in the impugned order that the applicant is not the registered owner of the vehicles concern and that the same was not claimed by any other person also.

Provisions of Sections 457 of Criminal Procedure Code provides power to the Court to pass an appropriate order for interim custody and for disposal of seized property pending trial where the property is subjected to natural decay and looking to the other circumstances, to the owner of the property.

No fruitful purpose will be served by retaining the vehicles during pendency of the trial or during confiscation proceedings, rather it will diminish the value of the said vehicles, when the petitioner is ready to produce the vehicle as and when called by above mentioned authorities, then certainly the vehicles concerned can be given in the interim custody of the registered owner. It is futile to lay the vehicles idle in the Police Station or any other unsecured place when the vehicle concern not kept in the secured place i.e. garage there is every possibility of it being damaged by vagaries of weather.

There is no bar that the property cannot be released looking to the seriousness of the offence. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and Others, held that interim custody of the seized or to be confiscated vehicles cannot be denied to a person who is registered owner, on the ground that the vehicles are liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the Act.

Keeping in view above facts and circumstances of the case, and further in the light of the decision in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase (supra), the impugned order dated 03.05.14 is hereby quashed. It is directed that seized vehicles Tractor No. MP 18 AA/8232 shall be delivered to the applicant on Supurdginama subject to producing the original registration certificate and permit and further on satisfying the following conditions:-

(i) That, the applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs Only) for the tractor, with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on an undertaking to produce the said tractor before the trial Court as and when required.

(ii) That, the applicant shall got the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer, who will be deputed by the trial Court and to be kept in the file of the case.

(iii)That, the personal bond of the applicant as well as surety shall carry the photographs and the bond of surety shall further carry the photograph of person identifying him before the Court which would be with full residential proof of the surety and the person identifying him.

(iv) The applicant shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and not to lease it to any one and not to alienate or create any third party interest and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make identifiable.

(v) The applicant will not allow the vehicle to be used for any anti-social activities.

(vi) In the event of confiscation order by the Court competent, the applicant shall keep the vehicle present positively for confiscation.

With the aforesaid, this application stands allowed. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial Court/the authority concerned for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.