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

rd

ON THE 23 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16906 of 2024 BALJINDAR SINGH @ BRAJENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI NIRMAL SINGH R/O PLOT NO 5, GAUSHALA ROAD, GURUGRAM HARIY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Mukesh Kumar Kulshrestha - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Dinesh Savita - PP for the State.

ORDER The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 528 of BNSS against the order dated 19.02.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal Revision No.11/2024 whereby the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena in POR No.22298/2023 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 457 of Cr.P.C. for taking the possession of the seized vehicle (Truck) bearing Registration No.HR 55 V 1847.

2. As per the prosecution story, the petitioner is a registered owner of vehicle (Truck) bearing No.HR 55 V 1847. The sandal wood approximately 80 kg was transported in the said vehicle illegally. During the pendency of the case, petitioner moved an application under Sections 457 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for custody of the said vehicle, which was rejected by order dated 22.12.2023.

3. The petitioner claims to be registered owner of the said vehicle (Truck)

bearing No.HR 55 V 1847. It is further submitted that petitioner filed an application under Sections 457 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for releasing the aforesaid vehicle which was dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2023. Being aggrieved by the same, the Criminal Revision was also preferred which has also been dismissed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 19.02.2024, as indicated above. Hence, this petition has been preferred.

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 Court below has rightly rejected the application. 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 panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the t