JITENDRA KUMAR VAIS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 02.04.2019 whereby learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 02.04.2019 dismissed his criminal revision No. 21/19 and affirmed the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by 1st JMFC, Amarpatan, Distt.-Satna in which JMFC, Satna dismissed the application u/s 457 to release the vehicle No. UP-95- B-4930.

(2.) The matter in brief is that petitioner-applicant is the owner of the vehicle No. UP-95-B-4930. On 16.01.2019, the Mining Inspector, Mines and Mineral Department, Ramnagar seized the vehicle of the petitioner for transporting the sand without any valid document or permit. Mine Inspector kept the vehicle with sand in safe custody at Police Station-Ramnagar. Thereafter, petitionerapplicant approached to JMFC, Amarpatan, District-Satna and there he filed an application u/s 457 of Cr.P.C. to release the seized vehicle. Learned Magistrate issued notice to the concerned party. Mines Inspector appeared before JMFC, Amarpatan, Distt.-Satna and submitted that the case was registered for offence u/s 2, 41 and 52 of the Forest Act. Learned JMFC, dismissed the application vide order dated 28.02.2019 on the ground that sand pertains to the area at Songhadiyal Forest Range in Sidhi so trial court does not have jurisdiction to decide the issue of releasing the vehicle on supurdnama. Thereafter, petitioner filed a revision against this order but his revision was also dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is settled law that vehicle seized in such circumstances ought to be released on supurdnama, the offence has been registered by officials at Satna and the vehicle has been seized at P.S.-Ramnagar Distt.-Satna hence, the jurisdiction lies with the learned court below at Satna. However, the learned court below erred by not considering the fact that the vehicle and the mineral sand was seized at Ramnagar and hence jurisdiction is with the District Court, Satna. Petitioner had purchased the Hi-wa vehicle under hire purchase agreement and is paying EMI to Shri Ram Finance. The petitioner is the owner of that vehicle. Petitioner also relies on the full bench decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Madhukar Rao,2000 14 SCC 624 has stated that the vehicle ought to be released by the Court below. So, petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order and releasing of the vehicle on supurdnama to the petitioner.