The court can modify conditions of vehicle return orders under inherent powers to balance the rights of property owners and revenue authorities regarding property seized in legal matters.

ORAL ORDER :

1. Present application relate to the return of Tractor No.MH-24/AW- 0283 under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palam is under challenge.

2. The Tractor No.MH-24/AW-0283 came to be seized by Police Station Palam Tq. Palam Dist. Parbhani, under Section 379 of the IPC and Section 48 (7) (8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code . The application filed by the applicant before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palam Dist. Parbhani, bearing Criminal M.A. No.97 of 2020 has been allowed on 17-07-2020. However, a condition has been imposed on the applicant as under ;

“(vii) The present order shall be without prejudice to the powers of executive magistrate to proceed pursuant to the provisions of Section 48 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Mines and Mineral Act, and vehicle shall not be returned until he exhausts the power in that regard…..”

Therefore, this condition has been challenged by the applicant by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. M. P. Kale for applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. A. M. Phule for respondent-State.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant vehemently submitted that there is no doubt that the applicant is the owner of the tractor in question. He is entitled to get the custody of the said tractor under Section 457 of CrPC. Though the application has been allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, yet the condition that has been imposed is very much harsh. Till the provisions under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Mines and Minerals Act are exhausted, applicant is not able to get the possession of the Tractor. Possibility of filing of appeal by either side cannot be ruled out and under such circumstance the tractor would be idle, and possibility of theft of that Tractor or parts thereof cannot be ruled out. Condition to pay penalty cannot be imposed in anticipation and further it cannot be based on assumption that applicant has committed the said offence. The condition that has been imposed cannot be complied with practically, and therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, ought not to have imposed said condition. Learned Advocate Mr. M. P. Kale relied on the decision by the Division Bench of this Court in Dhannu s/o Vittahl Phapal v. The State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.4258 of 2018, decided on 2nd August, 2018, wherein preliminary objection was raised by the petitioners in respect of applicability of Section 48 (7) (8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code . Though the petition was dismissed, yet as regards imposition of penalty for the vehicles is concerned, it was observed that they have a right to go in appeal. Thus, when that right is recognized then the possibility of getting the possession of the vehicles immediately gets postponed. He, further, relied on the decision by the Single Bench of this Court in Vikky s/o Satish Lalwani v. The State of Maharashtra , Criminal Application No.1417 of 2020, decided on 04-09-2020, wherein the application came to be allowed and condition directing the applicant to pay penalty to the tune of Rs.5 Lakh was set aside. The learned Advocate Mr. M. P. Kale has also relied on the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.963 of 2020, Pavan Rajgopal Darak Through Sagar Appasaheb Kadam v. The State of Maharashtra , decided on 21-09-2020, wherein also the condition was imposed that the seized vehicle shall not be released in favour of applicant until the payment of fine amount imposed by the concerned rev