FIROZ KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dtd. 5/4/2023 passed by the Special Judge, Bhind in MJCR No.135/2023, whereby application of the petitioner filed under Sec. 451 of Cr.P.C. for giving supurdgi of Ertiga Car No.UP16/BL 3703 and one POCO mobile has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that said vehicle was being used by accused persons for transporting 24.260 Kgs of Ganja. Said mobile was also seized having been found involved in the offence. After its seizure, petitioner filed an application before the Court below for taking Supurdgi of the said vehicle and mobile. The Court below dismissed the said application.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is the owner of the seized vehicle as well as mobile. He shall abide by every terms and conditions which shall be imposed by this Court and prayed for giving Supurdgi of the said seized vehicle and mobile to him. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs.State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 has held as under :- However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly. ' I n view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, the application seeking Supurdgi of the seized vehicle & mobile ought to have been allowed by the Court below imposing appropriate conditions as no useful purpose would be served in keeping the seized vehicle and mobile in police custody. Accordingly, impugned order dtd. 5/4/2023 is set aside and application under Sec. 451 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that on proving ownership of said vehicle and mobile by the petitioner and furnishing adequate surety to the satisfaction of the Court below, the aforesaid vehicle and mobile be given on Supurdginama to the petitioner, subject to following conditions: (1) That, the petitioner shall produce the said vehicle & mobile before the trial Court as and when directed; (2) That, in the meantime, he shall not alienate the aforesaid vehicle & mobile or make use of the same for any unlawful purpose; (3) That, he shall not carry out any change in the colour and outward appearance of the said vehicle & mobile. Before parting with the case, this Court found that order dtd. 13/1/2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No.38089/2021 which was circulated amongst judicial officers of lower judiciary for compliance has not been complied with. This is clear disobedience of the said order. This Court does not approve such rejection order of trial Court despite issuance of directions in the said order. Due to dismissal of the applications for Supurdgi, this Court is burdened with such petitions. The trial Judge is directed to adhere to the directions as contained in the order dtd. 13/1/2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No.38089/2021 while deciding applications for Supurdgi. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.