IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 24 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8506 of 2026 RAMSEVAK GURJAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Pallav Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav - Dy. Advocate General for the State.

ORDER The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

against the order dated 06.07.2024 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Joura, District Morena in Criminal Revision No.102/2022 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 13.09.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Joura, District Morena has been confirmed by which application under Section 451, 457 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was rejected for taking the possession of the seized vehicle (Tractor) on supurdginama.

2 . The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that FIR was registered against the petitioner bearing Crime No.423/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 414 of IPC and Section 4 and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 alleging that Tractor bearing Registration No.MP06/AC/7609 belonging to the petitioner was involved in illegally transporting the sand from Chambal River.

3 . The petitioner claims to be registered owner of the said Tractor bearing Registration No.MP06/AC/7609. It is further submitted that petitioner filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for releasing the aforesaid vehicle which was dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2022. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Revision and the same was also dismissed by confirming the order dated 13.09.2022 by the Revisional Court, as indicated above.

Hence, this petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and the aforesaid vehicle is in custody of Police and is lying in open sky while it requires continuous maintenance from time to time and if it is kept locked, the engine and other parts of the said vehicle will be out of order and the same will become useless for any work. There is no use of keeping the said vehicle in police custody for years till the trial is over. Trial is not likely to conclude in near future and may take long time. In such circumstances, it would be just and proper to release the said vehicle of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no use of keeping the said vehicle in police custody for years till the trial is over. Trial is not likely to conclude in near future and may take long time. In such circumstances, it would be just and proper to release the said vehicle of the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer and submitted that the Revisional Court has rightly dismissed the revision vide order dated 06.07.2024. He further submits that no palpable error on the face of record has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the order impugned. The said vehicle would be required during the trial for describing the nature of the property in detail, therefore he prays for dismissal of the instant petition.

7. Heard the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Sundar Bhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has laid down the procedure for disposal of the valuable items like currency, liquor, vehicle and narcotics drugs and has held as under :-

“Powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. If the proper p