Shaildnra Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

G.S. Solanki, J.—Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

The applicant has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 25.4.2014 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Criminal Revision No. 36/2014 affirming the order dated 4.4.2014 passed by JMFC, Shahdol in Criminal Case No. 167/2014 whereby the application filed by the applicant under Sections 451/ 457 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing the vehicle bearing No. MP17-HH-3162 on supurdginama has been dismissed.

The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that the Police of Police Station Sohagpur seized the truck bearing No. MP17-HH-3162 for carrying the animals without licence and Crime No. 167/2014 has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 11(gha) of Pashu Krurta Adhiniyam, Section 4, 6, 6(Ka), 6(gha) and 11(ka) of M.P. Gauvansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam and Section 66/ 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the applicant is the registered owner of the offending vehicle, he filed an application under Section 451/ 457 of the Cr.P.C. before JMFC, Shahdol for releasing the aforesaid vehicle on supurdginama, which was dismissed by JMFC, Shahdol. Being aggrieved thereby the applicant preferred a revision before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, which was also dismissed, hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both the Courts below have committed illegality in dismissing the application filed by the applicant. He has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Mohd. Islam and others Vs. State of M.P. and others � ILR (2013) MP 2265 and Raees Vs. State of M.P., to submit that mere commencement of the confiscation proceedings before the District Magistrate do not oust the jurisdiction of JMFC/trial Court to release the offending vehicle in the interim custody.

Learned counsel for the State has supported the orders passed by the Courts below.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the orders passed by the Courts below. A bare reading of Section 11(5) of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 along with Rules 5 and 6 of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 makes it clear that there is no restriction in releasing the seized vehicle on supurdginama during the pendency of confiscation proceedings. This Court in Mohd. Islam and others Vs. State of M.P. and others and Raees Vs. State of M.P. (supra) has observed that mere commencement of the confiscation proceedings before the District Magistrate under Rules 5 and 6 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 do not oust the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate/trial Court to release the seized vehicle. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, in my opinion, the Courts below have committed illegality in dismissing the application of the applicant under Section 451/ 457 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing the offending vehicle on supurdginama.

Consequently, this petition is allowed. Order dated 25.4.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 36/2014 and order dated 4.4.2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 167/2014 are hereby set aside. The seized vehicle/truck bearing No. MP-17-HH-3162 is directed to be released on furnishing a supurdginama by the applicant in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court/JMFC, Shahdol subject to complying the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall produce the vehicle bearing No. MP-17-HH-3162 before the trial Court as and when directed to do so.

(ii) In the meantime, the applicant shall not alienate the vehicle bearing No. MP-17-HH-3162 or make use of the same for any unlawful purpose and

(iii) The applicant shall not carry out any change in the colour and outward appearance of vehicle bearing No. MP-17-HH-3162.

Certified copy as per rules.