Confiscation proceedings should not be held or finalized till the pendency of the criminal case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as established in the case law of Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P. and State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao.

G.S. Solanki, J.

1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This petition has been filed by the applicant invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 5.8.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi in Forest Crime No. 471/25 by which the application filed by the applicant under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for interim custody of offending vehicle Tractor No. MP17D/5441 and Trolley No. MP17D/5442, has been dismissed.

2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that an offence has been registered vide Forest Crime No. 471/25 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi for the offence punishable under Sections 27, 29, 39(d), 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act and Sections 2, 41, 52 of the Forest Act. The applicant has filed an application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing the offending vehicle on interim custody on his Supurdginama, which was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi, hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial Court has committed illegality in dismissing the application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the seized property cannot be said to be the property of State unless there is a trial and a finding reached by the competent Court that the property was used for committing an offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act or the Forest Act, therefore, mere information regarding confiscation proceedings has not ousted the jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate concerned to release the offending vehicle on interim custody on Supurdginama. Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P. -, 2000 (1) MPLJ (F.B.) 289. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that if the impugned order is allowed to be continued, same would amount to abuse of process of Court, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the offending vehicle be released on interim custody.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has supported the order passed by the trial Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the material available on record. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the application of the applicant merely on the ground that he received an information regarding confiscation proceedings, therefore, he has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle on interim custody. This issue has elaborately been considered by Full Bench of this Court in Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P. (supra), wherein it has been held that till the pendency of criminal case before Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate, the confiscation proceedings should not be held or finalized. The aforesaid dictum of Full Bench of this Court has been affirmed by the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao, 2008 (1) JLJ 427. Thus, in my opinion, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed illegality in dismissing the application filed by the applicant under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, the impugned order is not tenable and same is liable to be set aside.

6. Consequently, in view of aforesaid decision of Full Bench of this Court, this petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The offending vehicle Tractor No. MP17D/5441 and Trolley No. MP17D/5442 is directed to be released on interim custody on furnishing the Supurdginama by the applicant in a sum of ` 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi, till the disposal of Criminal Case arising out of Forest Crime No. 471/25 as well as till the final disposal of confiscation proceedings pending in the Forest Department, if any, on the following terms and conditions:--

1. The applicant will not transfer, sale, alienate or create a