Ravikumar vs State of M.P.

Subhash Kakade, J.—Heard finally.

This application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against an order dated 04/2/2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 02/2014 by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni affirming the order dated 12/11/2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni in Criminal Case No. 4323/2014, whereby an application filed by the applicant for handing over the possession and custody of vehicle Scorpio bearing registration number M.P. 18-C 9000 involved in the crime has been dismissed.

As per the prosecution story, on 20.10.2013, an information, the police had checked vehicle Scorpio bearing registration number MP 18-C 9000 and found 112 KG cow meat in four different bags. Offences vide crime No. 879/2013 punishable under Sections 4, 5 & 9 of Govansh Vadh Pratished Adhiniyam, Section 7, 8, 10 & 11 of Madhya Pradesh Pashu Sanranshan Adhiniyam, Section 11(1)(6) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Section 66/192, 123/91, 81/147 of Motor Vehicle Act has been registered against the driver and other co-accused persons and the vehicle in question has been seized.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that learned Courts below while passing the impugned orders have failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested with them and committed grave error of law in holding that the aforesaid property will require at the time of trial, therefore, seized properties cannot be given on Supurdginama. It is further submitted that learned Courts below did not consider the fact that the applicant is the owner of the vehicle and if the seized vehicle be kept for a long time in open space at the police station, 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 seized for the offences, which is serious in nature.

It is nowhere disputed in the impugned order that the applicant is not the owner of the vehicle in question and that the vehicle is claimed by any other person.

Provisions of Section 451 of Criminal Procedure Code provides power to the Court to pass an order of interim custody and disposal of property pending trial where the property is subjected to speedy and natural decay and looking to the other circumstances, the property can be handed over to the owner.

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 vehicle cannot be denied to a person who is registered owner, on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated.

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 orders dated 04/2/2014 and 12/11/2013 are hereby quashed. It is directed that seized vehicle Scorpio bearing registration Number MP 18-C 9000 shall be delivered to the applicant on Supurdginama subject to producing the original registration certificate, permit of the vehicle and further on satisfying the following conditions:-

(i) That, the applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on an undertaking to produce the said vehicle 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 photographs 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 of both and the bond of surety shall further carry the photograph of a 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 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 concerned for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.