MAJID BHAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT Majid Bhai, a registered owner of the alleged Ambassador car bearing Registration No. MP13 -W -0823 has filed this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the orders of the Court below refusing to grant interim custody of the said car to the applicant. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the date of the incident, police Kshipra on search of the said Ambassador car found large quantity of Beer and liquor being illegally transported without any permit was seized from the said car. At the time of the incident the said car was driven by one Abdul Salim, brother of the present applicant and one Vishnu S/o Babulal was also found travelling in the said car. Police Kshipra seized the Beer and the liquor found in the car and also seized the car in question. An offence u/s 34 Excise Act was registered at the said police station against Abdul Salim and Vishnu. The present applicant, who is the registered owner of the seized Ambassador car filed an application before the trial Magistrate for the interim custody of the car u/s 451 read with S. 457 of CrPC. The trial Magistrate dismissed the application. The Revision filed by the applicant against the order of the Magistrate to the Sessions Judge Indore bearing Criminal Revision No. 381/98 was also dismissed by the impugned order. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this application u/s 482 CrPC for quashing of the aforesaid orders and prayed for grant of interim custody of the said car in favour of the applicant.

(2.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was finally heard at the motion hearing stage. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the Courts below, it emerged that applicant is the registered owner of the said car on the date of the incident. It is also not in dispute that at the time of the incident the applicant was not present at the spot or found travelling in the said vehicle. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that if the seized vehicle is allowed to remain lying idle, there is every possibility that by the time when the matter is finally decided the vehicle in question may be completely damaged or destroyed. The order of the Courts below, refusing interim custody of the seized car, causing injustice and hardship to the applicant and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court interference of this Court u/s 482 CrPC appears necessary for securing ends of justice.

(3.) THE learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State opposed the application and submitted that large quantity of Beer and liquor without any valid licence or permit was seized from the said car and offence u/s 34 of the Excise Act is registered in connection with the said car. He also submitted that under the provisions of the Excise Act, the seized car is liable for confiscation. As such, no interference is required in exercise of the powers u/s 482 CrPC. 1987 JLJ 586] and in case of Mangubhai v. State of M.P. decided on 6.8.98 in M.Cr.C. No. 2518/98; I am convinced that the interim custody of a motor vehicle cannot be refused to the registered owner merely on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated. The motor vehicle is meant for user and the owner should not be deprived of such user. It is also true that if the motor vehicle is not used for a longer time it is likely to rot and rust. In view of the facts of the case on hand and the law applicable, the interference of this Court in exercise of the powers u/s 482 CrPC appears necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.