Back
RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Rajveer Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Key Points: - The seized vehicle cannot be released until confiscation proceedings under Rule 53 of the 1996 Rules are completed (!) . - The petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed, upholding the orders rejecting custody of the seized vehicle (!) (!) . - The confiscation proceedings were started and are pending before the Collector (Mines Branch), Bhind, satisfying the condition for continued custody/failure to release (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity "CrPC" ), against the order dated 6/8/2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mehgaon, District Bhind in Criminal Revision No.27/2020; whereby, the order dated 27/7/2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class (for brevity "JMFC" ), Mehgaon District Bhind has been affirmed and the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.PC has been rejected. By said application, the petitioner has prayed for custody of seized vehicle on supurdgi.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind in connection with Crime No.267/2020 had seized the tractor bearing registration No.MP06-AB-4276 along-with trolley, which was involved in transportion of sand without having any royalty receipt. The petitioner has filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC before the JMFC, Mehgaon, District Bhind for releasing the vehicle in question on supurdgi. The JMFC, Mehgaon, District Bhind dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order passed by the JMFC, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision befo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
