KESHAV SINGH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner taking exception to the order dtd. 28/10/2023 passed by the trial court whereby application under Sec. 451 of Cr.P.C. for interim custody of Dumper No.RJ11GB6314 confiscated for alleged transportation of minor minerals under Ss. as mentioned below, during the pendency of the trial, was rejected.

(2.) It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that Truck of ownership of petitioner vide registration No.RJ11GB6314 was seized by the police in Crime No.250/2023 under Ss. 379, 414 of IPC, Ss. 52/192, 116/194(1), 122/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Ss. 50(k)/177, 51/177, 77/177 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle. It was further contended that so far as the offence in relation to illegal transportation of minor minerals is concerned, the Collector has imposed a penalty of Rs.4,40,870.00 which has been deposited by the petitioner on 20/10/2023 and receipt thereof has been appended along with the petition as Annexure P/3. It was further contended that so far as Ss. under the Motor Vehicles Act are concerned, the fine imposed had also been deposited. Even the Collector has directed release of the vehicle and so far as involvement of the said vehicle under Sec. 379 of IPC is concerned, the said offence is not made out, but even then since it has been registered, final adjudication will be done in the trial and till then as the penalty which has been imposed has already been deposited, the vehicle may be released in interim custody. On the strength of above arguments, it is submitted that present petition be allowed and the Dumper No.RJ 11 GB6314 be released in interim custody to the petitioner which is the sole means of bread earning of the petitioner.

(3.) Per contra, Shri Upadhyay appearing on behalf of the respondent/State o n advance copy submitted that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in rejecting the application as at the time of hearing of the matter, there was nothing on record to show that penalty imposed for illegal transportation of minor minerals has been deposited and also since the said illegal transportation had caused loss to the environment, therefore, it was found incumbent not to release the said vehicle in interim custody. It was further submitted that though the petitioner after passing of the order by the trial Court on 20/10/2023 has deposited the penalty with regard to illegal transportation of minor minerals and other penalty imposed under the Motor Vehicle Act, but still case under Sec. 379 of IPC is to be tried and in that regard at present it would not be expedient to release the vehicle on interim custody.