ORDER

1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 7.8.2021 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Khategaon District Dewas in Criminal Revision No.33/2021, whereby the revision of the petitioner for releasing the seized vehicle on interim custody was dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.7.2021 police got discreet information from the informer regarding illegal transportation of cattles. Police party reached on the spot and intercepted the pickup vehicle bearing registration No. MP-41-GA3238 and found that 4 calves (Kede) were being transported in very cruel manner, therefore, police seized the vehicle on the spot along with the calves and FIR was also registered against the owner of the vehicle/present petitioner which was seized in connection with Crime No. 437/2021 registered at P.S. Khategaon Dewas for the offences under sections 4, 6, 9 of M.P. Gowansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 (for short “Act of 2004”) and 5 of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upyogi Pashu Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, section 52/192 of Motor Vehicles Act and 11(?) of Pashu Krurta Adhiniyam, 1960.

4. During the pendency of the investigation, the petitioner had preferred an application under section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the seized vehicle. The said application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 20.7.2021 on the ground that the seized vehicle can be used again by the applicantand confiscation proceeding are likely to be initiated therefore, vehicle cannot be released. Thereafter, a Criminal Revision was preferred against the order of JMFC but the said revision was also dismissed by the 1st Sessions Judge Khategaon vide order dated 7.8.2021 giving reference to the order of JMFC and also taking note of the fact that confiscation proceedings regarding the seized vehicle has been started, therefore, vehicle cannot be released on interim custody.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the seized vehicle is lying in the open area in the police station and there is no proper arrangement for its care, therefore, his vehicle will be damaged. He further submits that the petitioner has never been convicted for any offence of similar nature, trial of both the matters are still pending, Collector Dewas has not given any permission to the concerned Magistrate regarding initiation of confiscation proceedings of the aforesaid vehicle, therefore, the Courts below have committed an error in rejecting the petitioner’s application filed under section 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. for the interim custody of the vehicle. He has also submitted that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question.

6. Per contra, learned PL for the respondent/State opposes the prayer by contending that the vehicle in question is subject matter of confiscation proceedings and the Collector, Dewas has given information regarding the confiscation proceedings to the concerned Magistrate and police officers, therefore, no ground is available to handover the said vehicle to the present petitioner.

7. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and to advert such contention, the relevant provision of the Act of 2004 is required to be seen.

8. As per section 11(5) of the Adhiniyam, 2004, it is clear that in case of any violation of sections 4, 5, 6-A and 6-B, the Police Authorities is empowered to seize the vehicle or cow progeny and beef. The District Magistrate is having power to confiscate the same in a manner prescribed under Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules of 2012, which deals, confiscation, and appeal are relevant, however, it is reproduced as under:-

Rule 4. Confiscation by District Magistrate.--

In case of any violation of sections 4, 5, 6, 6-A and 6-B, 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 197