ORDER :

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. This petition filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. assails the order dated 21.09.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Garoth District Mandsaur and also revisional order dated 13.10.2020 Annexure A/4, whereby the criminal revision no. 59/2020 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court below.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced two fold submissions:-

(i) The petitioner is being tried for allegedly committing offence under section 4, 6, 10 of Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, and 11(A)(D) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act and 429 of the IPC. Under those penal enactments, there is no impediment like one exists in the Excise Act, that if intimation is given to the Collector regarding confiscation proceedings, the vehicle cannot be given at Supurdginama.

(ii) Learned JMFC and Revisional Court have missed the point and despite fulfilling the requirement of granting the vehicle on Supurdginama, rejected it based on merits of the case, whereas the real parameters are laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. The principles laid down therein were recently followed by this Court in M.Cr.C No. 23768/2020 (Mohd. Shakir Vs. State of MP) decided on 08.09.2020.

3. In view of this order, the impugned order may be set aside and the vehicle may be given to him on Supurdginama.

4. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State.

5. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

7. A conjoint reading of both the impugned orders makes it clear that argument of learned counsel for the applicant has substantial force. The impugned orders are passed considering the nature of accusation and not on the basis of parameters which are relevant for the purpose of release of vehicle on Supurdginama. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

(Emphasis supplied)

8. The said principle is followed by this Court in the case of Moh. Shakir's case (supra). Pertinently, the allegations against Moh. Shakir were also arising out of Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act and relevant provisions of IPC. The coordinate bench after considering the relevant judgments opined as under:-

7. In the case of Raees V/s. State of M.P., 2013 (5) MPHT 233, this Court has held as under:

"5. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and to advert such contention the relevant provision of Adhiniyam of 2004 is required to be seen. As per Section 11 (5) of the Adhiniyam of 2004 it is clear that in case of any violation of Section 4, 5, 6A and 6B, the Police Authorities are empowered to seize the vehicle or cow progeny and beef. The District Magistrate is having power to confiscate the same in a manner prescribed. Rule 5 and 6 of the Rules of 2012, which deals, confiscation, and appeal are relevant, however, it is reproduced as under:-

"Rule-5 Confiscation by District Magistrate,-In case of any violation of section 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B, the police shall be empowered to seize the vehicles, cow progeny and beef as per the provisions of section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) in following manner:-

(i) He shall take possession of the vehicle;

(ii) He shall intimate the Veterinary Department to take in custody of the cow-progeny and beef.

(iii) The beef of cow-progeny shall be disposed of by the department by