PARSADILAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been submitted for exercising the inherent powers by this court with a prayer to set aside the order of the trial Judge dated 27th March 2012 in relation to Crime No. 20/12, registered by Police Station Survaya which was confirmed on revision bearing No. 49/12, vide order dated 12th April 2012 by the learned Sessions Judge Shivpuri (M.P.), refusing to issue directions for releasing the seized vehicle (Truck No. MP 07 G 4366), owned by the petitioner, on interim supurdginama, till finality of the confiscation proceedings pending before the competent authority. The facts, in short, just for the decision of the IInd petition are that on March 2012, 180 bags (near about 80 Qu.) of wheat belonging to the Public Distribution System were found to have been illegally transported in the offending vehicle for sale in the open market. On information, the truck with goods was intercepted and was seized by the Assistant Supply Officer Shivpuri. After requisite inquiry, the FIR was lodged in the Police Station Survaya. Investigation was put in motion. After seizure was effected, the confiscation proceedings were instituted before the Collector. The petitioner had applied for delivery of the seized truck under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of JMFC Shivpuri, but his application was rejected. On revision before the learned Sessions Judge, the said order was affirmed, hence, this petition.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned orders of the trial Judge as well as the revisional court are not in consonance with the provisions of law. It is contended that the learned two courts-below committed grave error in not releasing the seized truck under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act on the ground that the seized vehicle is subject to the confiscation proceedings which are pending before the District Magistrate. It is submitted that the learned Sessions court had the authority under the law to grant the interim relief including the interim delivery on supurdginama till finality of the confiscation proceedings before the court of law.. It is stated that the petitioner is the legal and registered owner of the seized vehicle, who is also ready to comply with all the conditions as may be imposed by the court. Accordingly, it is prayed that by allowing the petition appropriate directions may be issued to the competent court/authority to release the vehicle in question subject to furnishing supurdginama in accordance with the terms of the order of this court.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, opposed the petition of the petitioner for delivery of the seized vehicle used for the purpose of transportation and selling of the wheat belonging to Public Distribution System in the open market. It is, thus, submitted that the orders passed by the courts-below being according to the law, deserve to be upheld. Therefore, it is prayed that by confirming the aforesaid orders passed by the two courts below, the petition may be dismissed.