Onkar Prasad Loni and Another vs State of M.P.

K.S. Chauhan, J.—This criminal revision u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 14-9-2009 passed by the ASJ, Kotma District Anooppur in Criminal Revision No. 687/09 arising out of order dated 4-9-09 passed by the JMFC, Kotma in Criminal Case No. 956/09, whereby the Lower Revisional Court has set aside the order passed by the Trial Court.

The brief facts of the case are that on 2-8-2009 the applicants had gone to the forest by motorcycle bearing registration No. MP 18 G/0690 and killed two ducks and one crane by using breach loading gun. Gun and vehicle have been seized during the course of the investigation. An application for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama was moved by the applicants, which was allowed by the JMFC, Kotma. Being aggrieved by that order, respondent-State preferred revision before the Lower Revisional Court, which was allowed and the order of the Trial Court was set aside. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the instant revision has been preferred by the applicants on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision.

Shri D.N. Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application for releasing the vehicle on supurdnama in favour of applicants but the Lower Revisional Court has erroneously exercised its jurisdiction in setting aside that order. The order passed by the Revisional Court is contrary to the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case Madhukar Rao Vs. State of M.P. and Others, , therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the order of the Trial Court be restored.

On the contrary, Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/State supported the impugned order passed by the Lower Revisional Court.

The main point for consideration in this revision is that whether the Lower Rcvisional Court has committed an illegality in set aside the order of the Trial Court.

In the case of Madhukar Rao (supra), Full Bench of this Court has held that any property including vehicle seized on accusation or suspicion of commission of an offence under the Act can, on relevant ground and circumstance be released by the Magistrate pending trial in accordance with Section 50(4) of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 read with Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The mere seizure of any property including vehicle on the charge of commission of an offence would not make the property to be of the State Government u/s 39(1)(d) of the Act.

This Full Bench decision of this Court has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao reported in 2008 (1) MPJR 189.

Thus, it is settled position that Magistrate is empowered to release vehicle on supurdnama in the interim custody during pendency of trial. In the present case, Magistrate has rightly exercised discretion in releasing the vehicle in favour of applicants because no useful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle idle without using the same. It is common experience that trial takes a long time and possibility of vehicle being damaged during that period cannot be ruled out. The Lower Revisional Court has erroneously set aside the order of the Trial Court without giving congent reasons, which deserves to be set aside.

Consequently, the revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Lower Revisional Court is hereby set aside and the order passed by the Trial Court is restored.