Judicial magistrates retain the authority to grant interim custody of seized vehicles pending confiscation proceedings.

This petition has been filed under S.482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 10.8.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Criminal Revision No.65/2018 whereby; learned Sessions Judge affirmed the order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Distt. Khandwa whereby; learned JMFC rejected applicant's application filed under S.457 of Cr.P.C. for getting interim custody of vehicle bearing registration No.MP - 09 - HF - 8765 seized by the police in Crime No.107/2018 registered at police Station Pandhana for the offence punishable under S.4,6,9 Madhya Pradesh Govansh Pratishedh Adhiniyam 2004 (for short 'The Adhiniyam') and S.11 - D of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act .

2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the disposal of this petition are that on 04.03.2018 on the information of informant police intercepted the vehicle bearing registration No.MP - 09 - HF - 8765. On checking that vehicle it was found that 44 cattle (Cow Progeny) were illegally being transported in that vehicle. The cattle were being taken for slaughtering purpose to Maharashtra. The driver Shahjad @ Lala and other co - accused who were travelling in the truck at the time of incident were not having valid license for transporting the cattle. On that Police seized the cattle and the truck bearing registration No.MP - 09 - HF - 8765 and registered Crime No.107/2018 for the offence punishable under S.4,6,9 Madhya Pradesh Govansh Pratishedh Adhiniyam 2004 and S.11 - D of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and investigated the matter. Applicant being registered owner of the said truck, filed an application under S.457 of Cr.P.C. for getting said vehicle bearing registration No.MP - 09 - HF - 8765 in his interim custody before the Judicial Magistrate First Class which was rejected vide order dated 03.07.2018 with the observation that intimation regarding initiation of confiscation proceedings have been received from the Competent Authority, therefore, the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class had no jurisdiction to release the aforesaid vehicle on Supurdginama. Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed Cr.R.No.65/2018 which was also rejected by the Sessions Judge, Distt. Khandwa by order dated 10.08.2018, hence this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is a registered owner of the said vehicle. The truck was seized by the police in Crime No.107/2018 registered for the offence punishable under S.4,6,9 Madhya Pradesh Govansh Pratishedh Adhiniyam 2004 and S.11 - D of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act . It is further submitted that there is no provision in the "The Adhiniyam" that on the initiation of confiscation proceedings by the Collector, the jurisdiction of Magistrate to give the vehicle on interim custody ceases. Learned Trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court committed mistake in rejecting the applicant's application only on the basis that intimation regarding confiscation proceedings has been received from competent authority. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sarvan & Anr. v. State of M.P. reported in ILR [2016] MP 1214 & Sheikh Kalim v. State of M.P. reported in 2015 (II) MPWN 157. Hence, the applicant is entitled to get the interim custody of the said vehicle. Learned Trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court committed mistake in rejecting the applicant's application. So, the application of the applicant may be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent / State opposed the prayer and submitted that police seized said truck in Crime No.107/2018 registered for the offence punishable under S.4,6,9 Madhya Pradesh Govan