Sunday, 29 October 2017

SUNIL DHANGAR, Aged about 36 years, Applicant Son of Mr. Maan Singh Dhangar, R/o Village – Myana Jadhopur, Tahsil- Shujalpur, District- Shajapur, (Madhya Pradesh), Idea : 99267-62571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.               OF 2017 (CR)


PETITIONER            :               SUNIL DHANGAR 


Versus

                               

RESPONDENTS        :       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

& Ors.

 

DECLARATION


(Under Rule 25 of Chapter X)


The copies as required by Rule 25 of Chapter X of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008, have served upon
                      Clerk of office of the Advocate General for Madhya Pradesh at      PM on                 2017 in Jabalpur.

PLACE : JABALPUR


DATE :                             ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.               OF 2017 (CR)

PETITIONER            :               SUNIL DHANGAR 

Versus

RESPONDENTS        :       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

& Ors.

I N D E X

S. No.      
Description of documents
Annexure
 Pages
1.

DECLARATION (Under Rule 25 of Chapter X)

 

1
2.
Index

2
3.
Chronology of Events

3 TO 5
4.
Memo of writ petition with affidavit

6 TO 23
5.
List of documents.

24
6.
Copy of the Registration of the Vehicle dated 14.06.2012
P-1
25
7.
Copy of the Rent agreement dated 20.01.2014
P-2
26
8.
Copy of the Application dated 25.02.2015 for interim custody
P-3
27
9.
Copy of statement recorded by all the parties dated 24.03.2015 & 30.03.2015
P-4
28 TO 35
10.
Copy of the Order dated 06.01.2016 passed by respondent No. 3
P-5
36 TO 39
11.
Certified Copy of the Order dated 26.11.2016 passed by the court of IXth Additional Session Judge, Mr. Ram Kumar Choubey, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) in the file of Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2016
P-6
40 TO 42
12.
VAKALATNAMA

43
13.
COURT FEE

44
PLACE : JABALPUR

DATED :                                   ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHY PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.               OF 2017 (CR)


PETITIONER            :               SUNIL DHANGAR 


Versus

                               

RESPONDENTS        :       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

& Ors.

               

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS



S.No
 Date
Events
1.
14.06.2012
Truck bearing Registration No. MP 09/ GF 6672 was registered in the name of petitioner
2.
20.01.2014
The said truck was given to him, Mohd. Farid Khan S/o Mr. Bashir Khan on a monthly rent of Rs. 24,000/- in the month of January, 2014.
3.
16.08.2014
On 16.08.2014 a Truck bearing MP 09/ GF 6672 of the petitioner was seized by forest officials under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the '1927 Act'). As per the story of prosecution, the forest officials were petrolling in the Ratapani Sanctuary to check illegal transportation of forest produce. During the said petrolling, petitioner's Truck was found laden with Stamp, a forest produce in the prohibited area. Accordingly, the vehicle was seized and a forest criminal case was registered against the petitioner under 1927 Act. The 'forest produce' is defined in Section 4 of the 1927 Act. It is not in dispute between the parties that forest officials sent an intimation of aforesaid seizure to the Magistrate as per section 52 of 1927 Act (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) and it is also not in dispute that such an information was duly received by the concerned Magistrate.
4.
25.02.2015
Driver filed an application on 25.02.2015 for release of aforesaid truck on interim custody before the respondent No. 2, i. e. Authorised Officer & Superintendent, Ratapani Wildlife Sanctuary,  Obedullaganj Forest Division, District Raisen- 464 993, (Madhya Pradesh), on the ground that the said truck was given to him, Mohd. Farid Khan S/o Mr. Bashir Khan on a monthly rent of Rs. 24,000/- in the month of January, 2014.
5.
24.03.2015 & 30.03.2015
In a statement recorded on 30.03.2015 petitioner categorically stated that he had not accorded sanction for the illegal transportation, so also he had not given prior permission/ nor consenting party to the same.
6.
17.08.2014
Accordingly the seized truck was confiscated in Forest Crime No. 23097 of 2007 vide Order dated 17.08.2014 passed by Respondent No. 1, i. e. Forest Range Officer, Delabadi, Obedullaganj Forest Division, District Raisen- 464 993, (Madhya Pradesh)
7.
23.04.2015
So also the same was confirmed vide Order No. 12 dated 23.04.2015 passed by respondent No. 2, i. e. Authorised Officer & Superintendent, Ratapani Wildlife Sanctuary,  Obedullaganj Forest Division, District Raisen- 464 993, (Madhya Pradesh).
8.
06.01.2016
Petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 3, i. e. Appellate Authority - Chief Conservator Of Forest, Circle- Bhopal, 74 Bungalows, Sports Premises, Bhopal - 462 002, (Madhya Pradesh),’which was resulted into same fate.
9.
26.11.2016
Petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision under the provisions of Section 52 – B of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 against the order passed by respondent No. 3, i. e. Appellate Authority - Chief Conservator Of Forest, Circle- Bhopal, 74 Bungalows, Sports Premises, Bhopal - 462 002, (Madhya Pradesh), resulted in dismissal of the same by the Order dated 26.11.2016 passed by the court of IXth Additional Session Judge, Mr. Ram Kumar Choubey, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) in the file of Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2016
10.

Petitioner preferred a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Order dated 26.11.2017 passed by the court of IXth Additional Session Judge, Mr. Ram Kumar Choubey, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) in the file of Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2016, before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur.


PLACE : JABALPUR


DATED :                                   ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER


















Format No. 7
(Chapter X, Rule 23)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.                       OF 2017 (CR).

CAUSE TITLE



PETITIONER/          :       SUNIL DHANGAR, Aged about 36 years,

Applicant                           Son of Mr. Maan Singh Dhangar, R/o Village – Myana Jadhopur, Tahsil- Shujalpur, District- Shajapur, (Madhya Pradesh), Idea : 99267-62571


Versus

                               
RESPONDENTS        :1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
Forest Range Officer, Delabadi, Obedullaganj Forest Division, District Raisen- 464 993, (Madhya Pradesh). Phone : 07480 -22 4062(O), 22 4063(R)

2.     Authorised Officer & Superintendent, Ratapani Wildlife Sanctuary,  Obedullaganj Forest Division, District Raisen- 464 993, (Madhya Pradesh).
.

3.     Appellate Authority - Chief Conservator Of Forest, Circle- Bhopal, 74 Bungalows, Sports Premises, Bhopal - 462 002, (Madhya Pradesh). 
                       
                               
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India).

1.  Particulars of the Cause/ Order against which the petition is made:


S. No.
Date of Order / Notification/ Circular / Policy/ Decision Etc. :
Passed in (Case Or File Number) :

Passed by (Name and Designation of the Court, Authority, Tribunal Etc.)


(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
17.08.2014
Forest Crime No. 23097 of 2007
Forest Range Officer, Delabadi, Obedullaganj Forest Division, District Raisen- 464 993, (Madhya Pradesh)
2.
23.04.2015
12
Authorised Officer & Superintendent, Ratapani Wildlife Sanctuary,  Obedullaganj Forest Division, District Raisen- 464 993, (Madhya Pradesh).
3.
06.01.2016
Revenue/ 05
Appellate Authority - Chief Conservator Of Forest, Circle- Bhopal, 74 Bungalows, Sports Premises, Bhopal - 462 002, (Madhya Pradesh).
4.
20.11.2016
Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2016
Mr. Ram Kumar Choubey, IXth Additional Session,  Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)

(4)    Subject –matter in brief : By preferring this petition under Article 277 of the Constitution of India invoking the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court whereby calling in question the legality, validity, propriety and correctness of the impugned order dated 26.11.2016 whereby and wherein a criminal revision under the provisions of Section 52-B of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was dismissed inspite of the fact that if vehicle is unnecessarily kept in the police station or with the forest department, no useful purpose would be served. The vehicle would be damaged because it is exposed to sun and rain and in that eventuality, the vehicle can very well be released. 

An order of confiscation of forest-produce in a proceeding under Section 59-A of the Act would not amount either to penalty or punishment. Such an order, however, can be passed only in the event a valid seizure is made and the authorized officer satisfies himself as regard ownership of the forest- produce in the State as also commission of a forest-offence. An order of confiscation is not to be passed automatically, and in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 59-A a discretionary power has been conferred upon the authorized officer in relation to a vehicle. Apart from the ingredients which are required to be proved in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 59-A by reason of the proviso appended to Section 59-B, a notice is also required to be issued to the owner of the vehicle and furthermore in terms of sub-section (2) thereof an opportunity has to be granted to the owner of the vehicle so as to enable him to show that the same has been used in carrying forest- produce without his knowledge or connivance and by necessary implication precautions therefor has been taken.

2.  A declaration that no proceeding on the same subject matter has been previously instituted in any Court, Authority or Tribunal, if instituted, the Status or result thereof, along with copy of the Order:

Petitioner declares that that no proceeding on the same subject matter has been previously instituted in any Court, Authority or Tribunal.
3.  Details of the remedied exhausted :

The petitioner declares that he has availed all statutory and other remedies.

4.  Delay, if any, in filing the petition and explanation therefor :

From pillar to post petitioner was knocking every door for the redressal of his grievances but at the end petitioner surrenders himself before this Hon’ble High Court to seek justice as litigation is the last resort when government authority completely disregard the rule of law. Petitioner engaged some local lawyer who pursued the matter before the Court below to engage a suitable Lawyer at Jabalpur but due to mis – communication it was not filed before this Hon’ble High Court. It is well settled under the Law that litigant should not suffer for the fault of the Advocate.

5.  Facts of the Case :

1.   Petitioner is a peace loving national of India and entitled for the all the benefit and fundamental rights as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India. Respondents are the instrumentality of state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court.

2.   On 16.08.2014, a Truck bearing MP 09/ GF 6672 belonging to the petitioner was seized by forest officials under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the '1927 Act'). As per the story of prosecution, the forest officials were petrolling in the Ratapani Sanctuary to check illegal transportation of forest produce. During the said petrolling, petitioner's Truck was found laden with Stamp, a forest produce in the prohibited area. Accordingly, the vehicle was seized and a forest criminal case was registered against the petitioner under 1927 Act. The 'forest produce' is defined in Section 4 of the 1927 Act. It is not in dispute between the parties that forest officials sent an intimation of aforesaid seizure to the Magistrate as per section 52 of 1927 Act (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) and it is also not in dispute that such an information was duly received by the concerned Magistrate. Copy of the Registration of the Vehicle is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-1. Driver filed an application on 25.02.2015 for release of aforesaid truck on interim custody before the respondent No. 2 on the ground that the said truck was given to him, Mohd. Farid Khan S/o Mr. Bashir Khan on a monthly rent of Rs. 24,000/- in the month of January, 2014. Copy of the Rent agreement dated 20.01.2014 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-2. Copy of the Application dated 25.02.2015 for interim custody is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-3.

3.   In a statement recorded on 30.03.2015 petitioner categorically stated that he had not accorded sanction for the illegal transportation, so also he had not given prior permission/ nor consenting party to the same. Copy of statement recorded by all the parties dated 24.03.2015 & 30.03.2015 are filed herewith and collectively filed as Annexure P-4. Accordingly the seized truck was confiscated in Forest Crime No. 23097 of 2007 vide Order dated 17.08.2014 passed by Respondent No. 1, so also the same was confirmed vide Order No. 12 dated 23.04.2015 passed by respondent No. 2. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 3, which was resulted into same fate. Copy of the Order dated 06.01.2016 passed by respondent No. 3 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-5. Petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision under the provisions of Section 52 – B of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 against the order passed by respondent No. 3, resulted in dismissal of the same. Copy of the Order dated 26.11.2016 passed by the court of IXth Additional Session Judge, Mr. Ram Kumar Choubey, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) in the file of Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2016 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-6. Petitioner is challenging the most arbitrary and illegal order passed by the Court below on the following grounds amongst others :

6.  Grounds urged :

A.   For that, if vehicle is unnecessarily kept in the police station or with the forest department, no useful purpose would be served. The vehicle would be damaged because it is exposed to sun and rain and in that eventuality, the vehicle can very well be released.

B.   For that, The corresponding provisions in the Forest Act for seizure and confiscation of the vehicle of the forest can also be reproduced here as under:-
52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure therefor.
(1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce, together with all tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing any such offence may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer.
(2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of an Extra Assistant Conservator of Forest authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) or where it is, having regard to quantity of bulk or other genuine difficulty, not practicable to produce the property seized before the authorised officer, make a report about the seizure to the authorised officer or where it is intended to launch criminal proceedings against the offender immediately, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made:
Provided that when the forest produce with respect to which offence is believed to have been committed is the property of Government and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to his official superior.
(3) Subject to sub-section (5), where the authorised officer upon production before him of property seized of upon receipt of report about seizure, as the case may be, is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded confiscate forest produce so seized together with all tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing such offence. A copy of order on confiscation shall be forwarded without any undue delay to the Conservator of Forests of the forest circle in which the timber produce, as the case may be, has been seized.
(4) No order confiscating any property shall be made under sub section (3) unless the authorised officer-
(a) sends an intimation in form prescribed about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made;
(b) issues a notice in writing to the person from whom the property is seizure, and to any other person who may appear to the authorised officer to have some interest in such property;
(c) affords an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) of making a representation within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the proposed confiscation, and
(d) gives to the officer effecting the seizure and the person or persons to whom notice has been issued under clause (b), a hearing on date to be fixed for such purpose.
No order of confiscation under sub-section (3) of any tools, vehicles, boats, ropes,chains or any other article (other than the timber or forest produce seized shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or connivance or as the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for commission."
Section 52A (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) reads as under:-
"52A. Appeal against the order of confiscation.-- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation may, within thirty days of the order, or if the fact of such order has not been communicated to him, within thirty days of date of knowledge of such order, prefer an appeal in writing, accompanied by such fee and payable in such form as may be prescribed, along with certified copy of order of confiscation to the conservator of forests (hereinafter referred to as Appellate Authority) of the forest circle in which the forest produce has been seized.
Explanation-(1) The time requisite for obtaining certified copy of order of confiscation shall be excluded while computing period of thirty days referred to in this sub section. (2) The Appellate Authority referred to in sub-section (1), may, where no appeal has been preferred before him, "suo motu" within thirty days of date of receipt of copy of order of confiscation by him, and shall on presentation of memorandum of appeal issue a notice for hearing of appeal or, as the case may be, of "suo motu" action to the officer effecting seizure and to any other person (including appellant, if any) who in the opinion of the Appellate Authority, is likely to be adversely affected by the order of confiscation, and may send for the record of the case:
Provided that no formed notice of appeal need be issued to such amongst the appellant, officer effecting seizure and any other person likely to be adversely affected as aforesaid, as may waive the notice or as may be informed in any other manner of date of hearing of appeal by the Appellate Authority. (3) The Appellate Authority shall send intimation in writing of lodging of appeal or about "suo motu" action, to the authorised officer.
(4) The Appellate Authority may pass such order of "Interim" nature for custody preservation or disposal (if necessary) of the subject matter of confiscation , as may appear to be just or proper in the circumstances of the case.
(5) The Appellate Authority having regard to the nature of the case or the complexities, involved, may permit parties to the appeal to be represented by their respective legal practitioner.
(6) On the date fixed for hearing of the appeal or "suo motu" action, or on such date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the Appellate Authority shall peruse the record and hear the parties to the appeal if present in person, or through any agent duly authorised in writing or through a legal practitioner, and shall thereafter proceed to pass an order of confirmation, reversal or modification order of confiscation:
Provided that before passing any final order the Appellate Authority may if it is considered necessary for proper decision of appeal or for proper disposal of "suo motu" action make further inquiry itself or cause it to be made by the authorised officer, and may also allow parties to file affidavits for asserting or refuting any fact that may raise for consideration and may allow proof of facts by affidavits.
(7) The Appellate Authority may also pass such orders of consequential nature, as it may deem necessary. (8) Copy of final order on an order of consequential nature, shall be sent to the authorised officer for compliance or for passing any appropriate order in conformity with the order of Appellate Authority. Section 52B (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) reads as under:-
"52B. Revision before Court of Sessions against order of Appellate Authority.-- (1) Any party to the appeal, aggrieved by final order or by order of consequential nature passed by the Appellate Authority, may within thirty days of the order sought to be impugned, submit a petition for revision to the Court of Sessions division whereof the headquarters of the Appellate Authority are situate. Explanation.- In computing the period of thirty days under this sub-section the time requisite for obtaining certified copy of order of Appellate Authority shall be excluded.
(2) The Court of Sessions may confirm, reverse or modify any final order or an order of consequential nature passed by the Appellate Authority. (3) Copies of the order passed in revision shall be sent to the Appellate Authority and to the Authorised Officer for compliance or for passing such further order or for taking such further action as may be directed by such Court.
(4) For entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under this section, the Court of session shall as far as may be, exercise the same powers and follows the same procedure as it exercises and follows while entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974).
(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) the order of the Court of Sessions passed under this section shall be final and shall not be called in question before any Court.
Sec. 52C of Madhya Pradesh Amendment Bar to jurisdiction of courts etc. under certain circumstances:- (1) On receipt of intimation under Sub-section 4 of Section 52 about initiation of the proceeding for confiscation of the property by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of the property which is subject matter of confiscation, has been made, no court, tribunal or authority (other than the authorized officers, appellate authority and the court of Sessions referred to in Section 5252-A, and 52-B), shall have jurisdiction to make order with regard to possession, delivery, disposal of distribution of the property in regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated under Section 52, notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force.
Explanation : where under any law for the time being in force two or more courts have jurisdiction to try forest offence, then receipt of intimation under sub- section 4 of Section 52 by one of the courts of Magistrate having such jurisdiction shall be construed to be in receipt of intimation under that provision by all the courts and the bar to exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such courts."

C.   For that, The provisions of Indian Forest Act and the amendment incorporated therein was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of Ramniwas Vs. Game Range Chambal Sanctuary, Bhind, Headquarter, Ambah, District - Morena reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. 1747 = 2012(2) MPLJ 661. The Hon’ble High Court compared analogous provisions in Bengal Amendment Act, 1927 and observed by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others Vs.Sujeet Kumar Rana 2004(4) SCC 159 in para 17 reads as under:-
“17. The principles which can be culled out from the provisions of the 1927 Act and the judgment in Sujeet Kumar Rana's case (supra) are as under:-
(i) Forest Act is a Special Act;
(ii) M.P. Amendments provide a complete Code in itself by giving sufficient safeguards both substantive and procedural against any arbitrary exercise of power. It also prescribe hierarchy of adjudicatory bodies;
(iii) Section 52-C creates a bar on the jurisdiction of courts as described in it. Because of non-obstante clause used in Section 52-C it will have an overriding effect on other laws including general provisions of Cr.P.C.;
(iv) Once intimation of initiation of confiscation proceedings is given to Magistrate, the jurisdiction of Magistrate is ousted;
(v) Magistrate and revisions Courts can't grant interim custody of vehicle de hors the bar of Section 52-C.
(vi) Once confiscation proceeding is initiated, the jurisdiction of criminal courts in terms of Section 52- C of the 1927 Act is barred, the High Court also cannot exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. for interim release of such vehicle/property.

D.  For that, Thus, it may be seen that amendment in the Madhya Pradesh in Indian Forest Act provides a complete code in itself and also section 52 (c) quoted above have overriding effect on other laws including general provisions of Cr.P.C. However, in MP Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the Act), such analogous provisions are not incorporated and, therefore, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sheikh Kalim Vs. State of MP in MCRC No.1296/2015 dated 13.07.2015 placed reliance on the judgment of Full Court decision in the case of Madhukar Rao Vs. State of MP and others reported in 2000(1) JLJ 304 and also on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of MP and others Vs. Madhukar Rao reported in 2008(1) JLJ 427 and observed that when the trial Court did not find the accused guilty of alleged offence under the Act, confiscation of the property is not possible.
E.   For that, Before proceeding further, the observations made in the case of Madhukar Rao (supra) by the Full Bench of this Court may be quoted here with some benefit in para 18 of the judgment:-
“18.------------------------------------------------- If the argument on behalf of the State is accepted a property seized on accusation would become the property of the State and can never be released even on the compounding of the offence. The provisions of Clause (d) of Section 39 have to be reasonably and harmoniously construed with other provisions of the Act and the Code which together provide a detailed procedure for the trial of the offences. If, as contended on behalf of the State, seizure of property merely on accusation would make the property to be of the Government, it would have the result of depriving an accused of his property without proof of his guilt. On such interpretation Clause (d) of Section 39(1) of the Act would suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality. The interpretation placed by the State would mean that a specified officer under the Act merely by seizure of property of an accused would deprive him of his property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation. This would be a serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on his trade, occupation or business. The power thus would be exercised by an Executive Officer and without any proof of commission of an offence. Such arbitrary and uncannalised powers cannot be allowed to any Executive Authority. That would be against basic structure of the Constitution. The Constitution envisages trial of offences by an independent judiciary. An interpretation which would render Clause (d) of Section 39(1) to be unconstitutional has to be eschewed and interpretation which makes it constitutional should be preferred. See the following observations of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath v. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955) :

"It is well settled that if certain provisions of law, construed in one way, would make them consistent with the Constitution, and another interpretation would render them unconstitutional, the Court would lean in favour of the former construction."

F.   For that, The matter travelled upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court in the case of State of MP and others Vs. Madhukar Rao (supra) observed as under:-
The submission was carefully considered by the Full Bench of the High Court and on an examination of the various provisions of the Act it was held that the provision of section 39(1)(d) would come into play only after a Court of competent jurisdiction found the accusation and the allegations made against the accused as true and recorded the finding that the seized article was, as a matter of fact, used in the commission of offence.


7.  Relief Prayed for :

From the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner prays for the following writ or directions :

(i)                  To call for the records of Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2016 of the Court of IXth Additional Session Judge, Mr. Ram Kumar Choubey, Bhopal (M. P.) for its kind perusal.

(ii)                 To issue appropriate writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the portion of the impugned Order dated 06.01.2016 passed by respondent No. 3

(iii)                To issue appropriate writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the portion of the impugned Order dated 26.11.2016 passed by the Court of IXth Additional Session Judge, Mr. Ram Kumar Choubey, Bhopal (M. P.), in the matter of Sunil Dhangar V/s The State of Madhya Pradesh in the file of Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2016.

(iv)               Cost of this petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.

Any other writ or direction deems fit and proper may also be granted looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.


8.  Interim Order / Writ, if prayed for :


In view of the facts and circumstance of the case during pendency of instant writ petition truck in question bearing Registration No. MP 09/ GF 6672, may kindly be given to petitioner on interim custody, on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble High Court, in the larger interest of justice.


9.  Documents relied on but not in possession of the petitioner :

All the relevant material and original records in relation to subject matter in dispute is lying with respondent authorities which my kindly be requisitioned by the Hon’ble High Court for its kind perusal.

10.              Caveat :

That, no notice of lodging a caveat by the opposite party is received.


PLACE : JABALPUR

DATE :                                     ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

























IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.                        OF 2017 (CR).

CAUSE TITLE


PETITIONER            :               SUNIL DHANGAR 


Versus

                               

RESPONDENTS        :       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

& Ors.

 

AFFIDAVIT

I, SUNIL DHANGAR, Aged about 36 years, Son of Mr. Maan Singh Dhangar, R/o Village – Myana Jadhopur, Tahsil- Shujalpur, District- Shajapur, (Madhya Pradesh), Idea : 99267-62571, the above named deponent, solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

1.    That I am the Petitioner in the above mentioned writ petition and am fully conversant with the facts deposed to in the writ Petition.
2.    That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 10 of the accompanying writ petition are true to my personal knowledge and the contents of paragraphs are based on legal advice, which I believe to be true. No material has been concealed and no part is false.
3.    That the Annexure No(s). P-1 to P-6 to the accompanying writ petition are true copies of the originals and I have compared the said Annexures with their respective originals and certify them to be true copies thereof.

 

PLACE : JABALPUR

DATED :                                                           DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, SUNIL DHANGAR, the above named deponent do hereby verify on oath that the contents of the affidavit above are true to my personal knowledge and nothing material has been concealed or falsely stated. Verified at ______this______day of _______
 
 
DEPONENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.               OF 2017 (CR)

PETITIONER            :               SUNIL DHANGAR 

Versus

RESPONDENTS        :       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

& Ors.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

 

 

S.No
Description of document
Date of document
Original copy
Number of page
1.
Registration of the Vehicle
14.06.2012
Xerox
01 (One)
2.
Rent agreement
20.01.2014
Xerox
01 (One)
3.
Application for interim custody
25.02.2015
Xerox
01 (One)
4.
Copy of statement recorded by all the parties
24.03.2015 & 30.03.2015
Xerox
08
(Eight )
5.
Order passed by respondent No. 3
06.01.2016
Xerox
04 (Four)
6.
Order passed by the court of IXth Additional Session Judge, Mr. Ram Kumar Choubey, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) in the file of Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2016
26.11.2016
Certified Copy
03 (Three)

PLACE : JABALPUR:

DATED :                                  ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
APPENDIX 1-A
FORMAT OF V A K A L A T N A M A
[Rules 4 (1) of the Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961]

WRIT PETITION NO.               OF 2017 (CR)


PETITIONER            :               SUNIL DHANGAR 


Versus

                               

RESPONDENTS        :       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

& Ors.

                         

I, the petitioner named below do hereby appoint, engage and authorize advocate (s) named below   to appear, act and plead in aforesaid case / proceeding, which shall include applications for restoration, setting aside for ex - parte orders, corrections, modifications, review and recall of orders assed in these proceedings, in this Court or in any other Court in which the same may be tried / heard / proceeded with and also in the appellate, revisional or executing Court in respect of the proceedings arising from this case / proceedings as per agreed terms and conditions and authorize them to sign and file   pleadings , appeals, cross objections, petitions, applications, affidavits, or the other documents as may be deemed necessary and proper for the prosecution  / defence of the said case in all its stages and also agrees to ratify and confirm acts done by them as if done by me.
In witness whereof I do hereby set my hands to these presents, the contents of which have been duly understood by me, this – day of ----------------- 2016 at Jabalpur.
Particulars (in block letters) of each Party Executing Vakalatnama
Name and father s / Husband s Name
Registered Address
E-Mail Address (if any)
Telephone Number (if any)
Status in the case
Full Signature/  **Thumb Impression
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

PETITIONER



Accepted 
Particulars (in block letters) of each Advocate Accepting Vakalatnama

Full Name & Enrollment No. in State Bar Council 
Address for Service
E-mail Address  (if any)
Telephone Number (if any)
Full Signature

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1.
VIJAY RAGHAV SINGH
EN. No. M. P. / ADV  / 1554 / 2003
SEAT NO. 93, GOLDEN JUBILEE BUILDING, CHAMBER NO. 317, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES, JABALPUR 482 001
IDEA 98261-43925


2.
VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, EN. No. M. P. / ADV  / 949/ 2006
SEAT NO. 81, HALL NO. 1, FIRST FLOOR, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES, JABALPUR 482 001
NIL
RIM 93015 04927
AIRTEL 97554 82448

3.
AMIT KUMAR KHARE,
EN. No. M. P. / ADV  / 1291/ 2006
HOUSE NO. 1483 / 17, SARASWATI COLONY, BEHIND PARIJAT BUILDING, CHERITAL, JABALPUR 482 001
NIL
BSNL 94258 66726
 LAND LINE 0761  - 2345 005


*Score out which is not applicable

** The thumb impression shall be attested by a literate person giving above particulars.

No comments:

Post a Comment