The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohammad Nadeem Khan

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on admission. The applicant/State has challenged the order dated 25.5.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Criminal Revision No. 78/12, whereby the order dated 9.3.2012 passed by the Conservator of Appellate Authority, Seoni relating to the confiscation of the vehicle was set aside.

Facts of the case, in short are that, on 19.8.2010, it was found that the vehicle no. MP 22-BA 0138 was plying between the Chapra to Bheemgarh Road and eight logs of timber were found. Only the vehicle and timber were seized and the confiscation proceeding was initiated. The confiscation officer directed for confiscation of the vehicle and thereafter, it was approved by the appellate authority i.e. conservator of forest vide order dated 14.6.2011. The learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the order passed by the conservator and release the vehicle.

After considering the submissions made by learned Government Advocate for the State, it is apparent that initially, the vehicle was taken to Jabalpur alongwith the passengers and it was in the knowledge of the owner that vehicle was taken to the Jabalpur. While it was going back, the driver loaded eight logs of timber in the vehicle, which was nothing but a car not a loading vehicle and therefore, it is not possible that the owner would have imagined for such transportation. It would be apparent that without the knowledge of the owner that the driver has misused the vehicle in such a manner. In such a fashion, the car can be used for transportation of human being and it is not expected that in the return visit, the driver would load some logs of the timber in the vehicle. Learned Government Advocate has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex in the Case of State of West Bengal and Another Vs. Mahua Sarkar, , in which it is held that it is to be proved that the crime was in the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle. If the law laid by the Hon''ble Apex Court is applied in the present case then, it is apparent that there was no knowledge to the owner of the vehicle that the driver has committed such a crime. Under such circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni has rightly released the vehicle.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that no illegality or perversity is visible in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni. Hence, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant/State cannot be accepted and consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.

The order dated 25.5.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Criminal Revision No. 78/12 is hereby affirmed. Copy of the order be sent to the revisionary Court and the conservator of confiscation authority for information.