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. 47317 of 2025 RAMHET MEENA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Abhishek Bhadoriya - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Atul Kumar Sharma - PP for the State.

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

against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur in Criminal Revision No.26/2025 whereby the revision preferred by the State has been allowed setting aside the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sheopur in Forest Offence Case No.9688/2002 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 497, 503 of BNSS for taking the possession of the seized vehicle by National Chambal Sanctuary, Game Range Sabalgarh, Division Morena, District Morena was allowed.

2 . The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that FIR was registered against the petitioner at Forest Offence Case No.9688/2002 by National Chambal Sanctuary, Game Range Sabalgarh, Division Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 27, 29, 33, 50, 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act and Sections 41 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act alleging that Dumper bearing registration No.RJ-20-GC-2326 belonging to the petitioner was involved in illegally transporting sand from Chambal River.

3 . The petitioner claims to be registered owner of the said Dumper bearing Registration No.RJ-20-GC-2326. It is further submitted that petitioner filed an application under Sections 497, 503 of BNSS before the Trial Court for releasing the aforesaid vehicle which was allowed vide order dated 07.07.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred Criminal Revision and the same was allowed by setting aside the order dated 07.07.2025 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 set aside the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class. 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 i