Karim Khan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on admission. The applicant has filed the present application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for getting the vehicle bearing registration No. MP05-G-6338 on Supardiginama.

Facts of the case, in short, are that the vehicle in question was seized by the Police under the Provisions of Section 11(5) of M.P. Govansh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 (hereinafter to be referred as ''the Act'') and now confiscation proceeding is pending before District Magistrate, Betul. Applicant has moved an application before the JMFC Bhainsdehi District Betul to get the vehicle on Supardginama. The application was dismissed vide order dated 24/5/13. A revision was also moved but the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Betul vide order dated 11/6/13 dismissed the revision filed by the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicle could be given on Supardginama and he has shown the order dated 9/8/12 passed by Single Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 8782/12, in which the vehicle was given on Supardginama. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. and Others Vs. Madhukar Rao,

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts of the case, it would be apparent that the judgment passed by Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Madhukar (supra) deals with the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, in which there is no provision of confiscation and therefore, the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment cannot be applied directly in the present case. If criminal trial is initiated before the J.M.F.C., then he has an authority to deal with the property produced before the Court alongwith the charge-sheet. In the present case, provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act is enacted, in which it is directed that no such property shall be produced before the trial Court and it shall be produced before the District Magistrate, who will proceed with the confiscation proceedings and there are provisions of appeal and revision against the order passed by the District Magistrate. Under such circumstances, when no property is to be produced before the trial Court for its disposal, then the trial Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order final or interim to dispose of that property. Hence, the application filed before the JMFC Bhainsdehi could not be accepted because the JMFC had no jurisdiction to dispose off the property. The learned trial Court as well as the learned Revisionary Court has rightly passed the rejection orders according to law and no illegality or perversity is visible in the orders passed by both the Courts below.

This Court has inherent powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. to release the vehicle on Supardginama, but when confiscation proceedings are pending before the District Magistrate, Betul, then the applicant shall move an application for Supardginama before the District Magistrate, Betul. Thereafter, the order passed by the District Magistrate shall be challenged before the appropriate Forum. Under such circumstances, at present, the vehicle recovered by the Police under M.P. Govansh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 cannot be given to him by powers of this Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. The present petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by Karim Khan cannot be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.