1998 Supreme(MP) 824

S.B. Sakrikar, J.
Paramjeet Singh v. State of M.P.
Misc. Cr. Case No. 3412 of 1998 (I); Decided on 28.10.1998.

Headnote:(1) Excise Act, 1915 (M.P.) -- S. 34-A -- truck seized in offence under -- may be given on interim custody even if it is liable to be confiscated at the end of trial.

        (2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 457 -- interim custody of truck -- cannot be refused even if it is liable to be confiscated at the end of trial.

        ¼1½ vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1915 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 34&d & vijk/k esa vfHkx`ghr Vªd & varfje vfHkj{kk esa fn;k tk ldrk gS] Hkys&gh og fopkj.k ds var esa vf/kâr fd, tkus ;ksX; gksA

        ¼2½ naM Áfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 457 & Vªd dh varfje vfHkj{kk & bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk] Hkys&gh og fopkj.k ds var esa vf/kâr fd, tkus ;ksX; gksA

        The counsel for the applicant submitted that Courts below have committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the applicant for grant of interim custody of the truck in question in favour of the applicant, who is the registered owner of the said vehicle. The counsel also contended that if seized vehicle is allowed to remain lying idle then there is ever possibility that by the time, when the matter is finally decided the vehicle in question may be completely damaged or destroyed. The orders of the Courts below refusing to grant interim custody of the seized vehicle to the applicant, who is registered owner causing hardship and the interference of this Court exercising powers under S. 482 CrPC for securing ends of justice is necessary. The counsel relied on the decision of this Court in case of Kanhaiyalal v. Govt. of India (1987 JLJ 586) and common order dated 6.7.98 of this Court passed in MCrC No. 1703/98 Ashok Kumar v. State; MCrC No. 1704/98 Santosh Kumar v. State and MCrC No. 1705/98 Vijay Kumar and Ors. v. State of M.P.

        As against this, learned Penal Lawyer appearing for the State supported the impugned order and submitted that the said truck was seized in connection with crime registered at Police Ringnod under S. 34-A of the Excise Act for transporting larger quantity of illicit liquor without any valid permit. The counsel also submitted that under the Provision of Central Excise Act, seized truck is liable to be confiscated. As such the interference of this Court is not necessary exercising powers under S. 482 CrPC.

        Held : I have considered rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and carefully perused the case diary of crime No. OX 45/98 registered at P.S. Ringnod, it is not disputed that the applicant is the registered owner of the seized truck. It is also not disputed that the said truck may be confiscated in connection the offence registered under the Excise Act but the law is well settled in the point that merely because the vehicle is liable to be confiscated cannot be released during the pendency of the trial, is not a justifiable ground for refusing interim custody of the seized vehicle to the registered owner of the seized vehicle. The motor vehicle is meant for user and the owner should not be deprived of such user. It is also true that if the motor vehicle is not used for a longer time, it is likely to rot or rust. While considering the question of interim custody, the Court should take into consideration that the questioned vehicle when called upon by the Court for the purpose of evidence or in the event of confiscation order, the same would be produced for the aforesaid purpose. The application for interim custody normally should not be rejected unless there are grounds to believe that the seized vehicle is not going to be produced when required for the purpose of evidence by the person to whom the interim custody of such vehicle is given. The Court is competent to impose conditions on the applicant while passing the order of interim custody to secure or satisfy the aforesaid purpose. The same principle is laid down in Kanhaiyalals case (Supra) while considering the point of interim custody of the seized vehicle. even liable to be confiscated.

        In view of the facts of the case on hand and the law applicable if the interim custody of the seized vehicle is refused to the applicant, who is the registered owner of the said vehicle shall cause hardship to the applicant. As such it becomes necessary for this Court to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice exercising powers under S. 482 CrPC.

        In the result, this petition filed by the applicant is allowed. The impugned orders of the Courts below dated 15.7.98 and 14.8.98 refusing to grant interim custody of the truck in question to the applicant are quashed. The trial Court is directed to order for interim custody of the seized truck bearing reg. No. MP/09-K/6256 in favour of the applicant, registered owner of the said truck imposing such conditions as may be considered necessary to safeguard interest of the parties concerned.