Confiscation of a vehicle during the pendency of a criminal case is not permissible, as established by the Supreme Court's rulings and the principles laid down in previous cases.

Heard.

2. Challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority in the matter of confiscation of a vehicle and contending that during pendency of the criminal case the vehicle cannot be confiscated this writ petition has been filed.

3. The facts that have come on record show that the allegation is to the effect that on 10-10-2004 at about in the afternoon a tractor bearing, registration No. MP 48-MO-0959 along with a trolley bearing Registration No. MP 48-MO-0960 was seized carrying teak woods in an illegal manner. Accordingly, the offence under the Indian Forest Act read with M.P. Vanopaj Vyapar Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 1969 was registered and the driver and person sitting in the tractor were arrested. The prosecution was launched against them and criminal case is still pending. However, during pendency of the criminal case a proceeding has been initiated for confiscation of the tractor and Competent Authority has directed for confiscation of the vehicle and the appeal and revision against the same having been dismissed, the petitioner has filed this petition.

4. Even though various grounds have been raised in the petition and learned Counsel for the respondents refuted the aforesaid but the fact remains that the question of confiscation of vehicle during pendency of criminal case has already been decided by the Supreme Court and the law in this regard is well settled. Initially, a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Madhukar Rao Vs. State of M.P., 2000 ( 1 ) JLJ 304 = 2000 (1) MPLJ 289 (FB), has laid down the principles that once the criminal case was pending, confiscation proceedings should not be held and finalised. The judgment rendered by the Full Bench has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Madhukar Rao, 2008 (1) JLJ 427, and it has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that the provisions of Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, and the amendment made to the said Act do not in any way affect the powers of the Magistrate to pass interim order with regard to release of the vehicle and it is further held that when the criminal case is pending final order with regard to confiscation of the vehicle should not be passed. This principle laid down in the case of Madhukar Rao (supra), is again reiterated and affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Vs. J.K. Johnson, AIR 2012 SC 61, and it has been held that the provisions of Act do not permit Specified Officer to deal with the property seized for commission of the offence until and unless final decision in the criminal proceedings are not taken.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders directing confiscation and forfeiture of the vehicle is unsustainable and it cannot be done until and unless the criminal proceedings are finalised and in the present case as the criminal proceedings are still pending, the action impugned cannot be sustained.

6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned orders, Annexures P-1, for confiscation passed on 7-5-2005, Annexure P-2, dated 20-4-2007 passed by Appellate Authority and Annexure P-4, passed by learned Revisional Authority are quashed and the property is directed to be returned back to the petitioner and liberty is granted to the State Government to proceed with the matter in accordance with law after criminal case is finalised. As the vehicle in question is in custody of the State Government and as the possibility of the vehicle being destroyed cannot be ruled out, interest of justice requires that the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner on certain conditions.

7. In view of the above, it is directed that the vehicle in question (Tractor bearing registration No. MP 48-MO-0959 along with trolley No. MP 48-MO-0960) shall be returned to the petitioner on the petitioner's furnishing a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lakh to be kept alive during the pendency of the criminal