Sachin vs State Of M.P

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to release the vehicle truck registration

No.MP04-GA-7663 seized by Police Station Parasia in Criminal Case No. 359/2016 registration for offence under Sections 4, 6, 9 of the Madhay

Pradesh Gau Vansh Vadh Pratishodh Adhiniyam, 2004 and under Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and under Section

4, 6, 7 of the Madhay Pradesh Krishi Pashu Parikshan Adhiniyam, 1959 and under Section 66/192, 3/181 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

The applicant’s application for release of the vehicle on Superdnama was dismissed by the JMFC, Parasia on 20.02.2017. The applicant preferred

Criminal Revision No.37/2017 which was decided by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara on 27.04.2017. Therefore, the applicant has

preferred this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The affirmed the order passed by learned JMFC.

It is claimed that the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle. It is alleged that the accused person have transporting the cattle on vehicle

truck No.MP04-GA-7663 on 19.07.2016. The vehicle has been seized an offence of registered Police Station Parasia. The driver and conductor

allegedly left the truck and fled away.Â

Learned JMFC as well as the Sessions Judge observed that the vehicle has been referred to District Magistrate for confiscation. The proceeding

before District Magistrate is can be challenged before the Commissioner; the order of the Commissioner is revisable.

On behalf of the applicant it is contended that the applicant is the registered owner of the truck. The truck can only be confiscated, after finding that

offence has been committed. Therefore, if at all the confiscation proceeding is pending the Court would be at liberty the release the vehicle exercising

the provision under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The applicant placed reliance on Raees Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2013 (5) MPHT 233, Premdas Vs.

State of M.P. and others reported in 2013 (2) MPLJ 218.

In the case of Raees (supra) earlier judgment of this Court “Madhukar Rao Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2000 (2) M.P.H.T. 445â€

(Full Bench) has been relied and held that the criminal Courts are competent to pass order of interim custody hence directed to release the cattle on

supurdnama, which have seized in connection with offence under Sections 4,5,6,9,11 and 17 of the Madhaya Pradesh Gau Vansh Vadh Pratishodh

Adhiniyam, 2004.

In the case of Premdas(supra) vehicle seized under the forest Act was allowed to be released on supurdnama. Reliance was placed on the case

Madhukar Rao (supra) which was later up held by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. & Others Vs. Madhukar Rao, (2008) 1 JLJ 427.

In the case State of M.P. & Others Vs. Madhukar Rao, (supra) the Apex Court has held that the accusation and allegation made against the accused

is true or not can only be recorded in the finding that seized article was used for the Commission of the offence, up holding the order passed by Full

Bench of this Court, held that the provision Section 39(1)(d) of the Wild Life Protection Act for confiscation of the vehicle can not be used against the

exercise the Magisterial power to release the vehicle during the pendency of the trial.

On behalf of the respondent/State, application is opposed stating that the District Magistrate has been authorized to confiscate the vehicle used for

transportation of the cattle illegally for contravention of the Act.

It would be appropriate to held that the vehicle truck may be released till disposal of the criminal case or the proceeding before the District Magistrate,

Chhindwara. Therefore, this petition is allowed, the vehicle may be released.

As vehicle is kept in open under the sun and rain it would subject to damage, the same can be released on supurdnama. In this regard reference can

also be made to the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638. This application is allowed. The Dumper bearing

registration No. UP 64 A.T. 1996 be delivered to the petitioner on Supurdnama subject to producing of the original Registration Certificate and

Insurance Certificate and on satisfying the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall furnish a Bank Guarantee ofRs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac Only) [as has been held in the case of State of Karnataka Vs.

K. Krishnan, (2000) 7 SCC 80] and superdnama in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac 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) The petitioner shall not transfer/sale/alienate or create thirdparty interest in respect of vehicle in question without the permission of trial Court.

(iii) The petitioner will not change the parts, colour ormachinery, except for necessary repairs for smooth running of the vehicle.

(iv) The petitioner will produce the vehicle at his own expensesas and when directed to be produced.

(v) The petitioner shall not use the vehicle for any similaroffence. (vi) If the above conditions are breached, learned trial Court may forthwith pass an

order for seizure of the vehicle and proceed in accordance with law.

(vii) The petitioner shall get the vehicle photographed showingthe registration number as well as the chassis number of vehicle in question. 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.

(viii) The petitioner will produce the vehicle as and whenrequired by the trial Court during the trial till disposal of the criminal case as well as by the

confiscating authority till final disposal of the confiscation proceeding pending, if any. (ix) The petitioner shall not allow the vehicle to be used for any

anti social activities.

(x) In the event of confiscation order by the Court competent, the petitioner shall keep the vehicle present positively for confiscation. Accordingly,

this petition is disposed of.

C.C as per rules