PREMDAS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri S.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri S.K. Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the respondents/State. Challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority in the matter of confiscation of a vehicle and contending that during pendency of the criminal case the vehicle cannot be confiscated this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The facts that have come on record show that the allegation is to the effect that on 10-10-2004 at about in the afternoon a tractor bearing registration No. MP48-MO-0959 along with a trolley bearing Registration No. MP48-MO-0960 was seized carrying teak woods in an illegal manner. Accordingly the offence under the Indian Forest Act read with M.P. Vanopaj Vyapar Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 1969 was registered and the driver and person sitting in the tractor were arrested. The prosecution was launched against them and criminal case is still pending. However, during pendency of the criminal case a proceeding has been initiated for confiscation of the tractor and competent authority has directed for confiscation of the vehicle and the appeal and revision against the same having been dismissed, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) Even though various grounds have been raised in the petition and learned counsel for the respondents refuted the aforesaid but the fact remains that the question of confiscation of vehicle during pendency of criminal case has already been decided by the Supreme Court and the law in this regard is well settled. Initially a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Madhukar Rao vs. State of M.P., 2000 1 MPLJ 289 has laid down the principles that once the criminal case was pending, confiscation proceedings should not be held and finalized. The judgment rendered by the Full Bench has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Madhukar Rao, 2008 1 JabLJ 427 and it has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that the provisions of section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, and the amendment made to the said Act do not in any way affect the powers of the Magistrate to pass interim order with regard to release of the vehicle and it is further held that when the criminal case is pending final order with regard to confiscation of the vehicle should not be passed. This principle laid down in the case of Madhukar Rao is again reiterated and affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests vs. J.K. Johnson, 2012 AIR(SC) 61 and it has been held that the provisions of Act do not permit Specified Officer to deal with the property seized for commission of the offence until and unless final decision in the criminal proceedings are not taken.