DILIP Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A batch of these forty-three petitions is proposed to be disposed of by this common order because they all raise the same legal questions for consideration and answer by the Court and that question is whether the Magistrate has power under Section 451 or 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to grant interim release of the vehicle seized by the authorities under the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 or under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 or under the Forest Act.

(2.) I would like to note that some of these petitions have been filed by the owners of the offending vehicles aggrieved by refusal of interim release of their vehicles by the Magistrate on the ground that he has no power or jurisdiction to grant interim release and some petitions have been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh aggrieved by the orders of the Magistrate/Revisional Court granting interim release of the offending vehicle to its owners on supurdari subject to certain conditions mentioned in the orders.

(3.) Whether the petitions have been filed by the vehicle owners or by the State raise only one question regarding competence of the Magistrate to grant interim release of vehicle to its owner during the pendency of trial against the claimant. The question that arises for consideration in these petitions has already been considered and answered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Madhukar Rao Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2000 1 MPLJ 289, wherein it was held as under :-