High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 10 MP CK 0010

Hariram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 1 October 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shailendra Shukla, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1677 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 413 words

Submissions were made on this criminal appeal filed under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 31.08.2018 pronounced by the Special Judge (SC/ST), Dhar in MJCR No.204/2018 wherein learned Judge has dismissed the application for possession of tractor bearing registration No.MP 11 AB 7496, which was earlier seized in connection with Crime No.78/2011 the investigation culminating into filing of charge-sheet and sessions trial was registered vide S. T. No.356/2011.

This matter pertains to Sections 364, 302 (2 counts), 302/34, 201 and 120-B of IPC. In this case, judgement of acquittal was pronounced on 01.05.2018 vide para-152 of which, the seized tractor was directed to be handed over to the registered owner i.e. the present applicant Hariram. During continuance of the trial, interim custody of the vehicle was given to Satish Patidar, who was son of the deceased namely, Yashwant and Girija.

The prosecution story in short was that Satish Patidar had given loan of Rs.25.00 lacs to the accused and with this amount, the accused had purchased the tractor and thereafter, he became the registered owner of the vehicle.

Learned counsel for the objector submits that this tractor was purchased illegally by the accused instead of returning the amount and therefore, they were provided with the interim custody of the vehicle because the vehicle was wrongfully purchased from the loan amount. However, he fairly admits that no civil suit for recovery of loan amount has been instituted by Satish Patidar.

Any vehicle which is seized has to be returned to the registered owner only and there cannot be any waiver from this established and legal practice. Hence, objection of the objector is rejected and as per the direction of the Trial Court in its order dated 01.05.2018, tractor needs to be handed over to the applicant.

Learned Trial Court in its order dated 31.08.2018 had rejected the application for custody of the vehicle on the ground that it will be the Appellate Court who will decide the matter and this being the Appellate Court, in view of the conclusions arrived at as above, present criminal appeal stands allowed. As already stated, the said tractor bearing registration No.MP 11 AB 7496 is directed to be handed over to the applicant. The non-applicant No.2 is directed to produce the vehicle before SHO, Police Station Tirla, District Dhar on 15.10.2019 from where the applicant shall be granted custody of the vehicle.

The criminal appeal is disposed of in above terms.

Certified copy, as per rules.