SURESH KHEDE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed present petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 17/02/2022 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani in Criminal Revision No.21/2022, whereby the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barwani on 04/02/2022 in Crime No.747/2021 under Sec. 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. has been affirmed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. He was using the vehicle for his business purposes. The trial Court has erred in not considering the important aspect that there is no bar provided under the Adhiniyam of 2004. The seized vehicle is lying in an open area in Police Station and there is no proper arrangement for its care. Vehicle is deteriorating day by day. He further submitted that trial is pending since long before the concerned trial Court and the confiscation proceedings have been finalized against the petitioner before the final judgment of the trial Court. Hence, he prays that both the impugned orders be set aside and the seized vehicle be handed over to the applicant on Supurdagi.

(3.) In case of any violation of Sec. 4, 5, 6, 6-A and 6-B, the police shall be empowered to seize the vehicles, cow progeny and beef as per the provisions of Sec. 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (No.2 of 1974) in following manner:-