!"CF0000088146 ^'Bs^fea <y^^ JODICATURS AT JABALPOa THE HIGH \\^n of APPLIGMI2 Bilaspir (MP) GS REVZSIOI.I PETI'i'ION UHDER SSCITON l;r'f?^y2^- •A..-. —B v (3) CRIMINAL REVISIOB N0.1147_0g 1996 Surjeet Singh vs. Tbe State of Madliya Pradesh 0 R_D_E^ By tbis petition, under Section 397 read witb Section A01 o.f the Code of Criainal Procedure, the applicant seeks to impugn the correctness, validity and propriety o£ the order dated 11-9-1996 passed in Criainal AppeaL No.91/96 sy the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar, confiraiag the judgaeat and order dated 27-5-'1996 passed in Criainal Case No.284/96 by tbe learned Addi-tional Chief Judicial Magistrate» Jashpuriiagar. ^ilef-i-^sWSStSit-"' 2. 3.he -facts reveal that on 25-5-1996, at about 8.45» one Harihar Sai was transporting forty-seven cartons o£ Beer illegally in a Jeep bearing registrationNo.MP 26F/0717. Tbe challan was filed against the said accused and be pleaded guilty. J-he learned trial Judge on the plea of guilty, convicted the accused and imposed the sentence of fine o£ Rs.2,000/-. Ihe saia order was passed on 27-3-1996. However, on 1-5-1996, an application was aade by the Assistant District Prosecution Offi. cer to the Court that proper orders be passed in relation to the contraband liquer. On the same date, the learned Additional Ctiief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application. It appears that while convicting the said Harihar Sai on 27-3-1996 the learned -fcrial Court directed confiscation o£ -the Jeep. 3. ^be applicant, who is the registered owner o£ the satd Jeep, being aggrieved by the said order, pre.ferred criminal appeal Ho.91/96, wbich was disaissed on 11-9-1996. Therefore, he has filed this revision petition. 1 Mir>:t L _ 1: . i a]);':! i its. m t-' .2- 4. Submissions o£ tfae learned counsel for tbe applicant are tbat tbe applicaat is the registered owner o£ the vebicle and before conflscatlon of tbe property, he was reqaired to be heard* According to him, in view of Section lf6(2) o£ the M.P. Excise Act, a vehicle certainly can be confiscated i-f it is found involved in coaaission o£ the offence, but i£ the registeredowner or the owner of the vehicle proves to the satisfaction efthe Court -that the vehicle was used and utilised without his knowledge or there was no culpabillty on his part, then such a vehicle cannot be confiscated. According to hia, while passing the confiscation order, the applicatit was aot heard and the appellate Court was absolutely unjustified ira observing that tbe applicant could himself appear and take part in the proceedings. On tbe other handa learned counsel .for tbe State has sigiported the orders, passed by tbe two Courts below. I have heard the parties and perused tbe records. 5. From the records, it appears that on 27-5-1996, 1 said Haribar Sai wasproduced before Additional Cbie.f t Judicial Magistrate, the challan was .filed and said Harihar Sai pleaded guilty before the said Court. Ihe trial Court imposed a fine o£ Rs.2,000/- against the said Harihar Sai, wbo Immediately paid tbe same. Undisputedly, said Harihar Sai was net the owner ef the veblcle. On the strength o£ > tberecords, it cannot be disputed that the vehicle ia question belonged to tbe present applicatt. A copy o£ the registration certificate, power o.C attorney and the insurance pollcy 1s available on the record. It would clearly sbow that the vehicle belonged to the present applicant and said Harihar Sai had nothing to do with the said vehicle. In accordance with the provisions of the Excise Act, the applicant certainly was entitled to be heardo -^he approach o£ the lower appellate Cburt tliet the applicant faimself could have taken part in the proceedings cannot be accepted. ~.p lltl lili 6. When the law says that a person is reqyired to be beard, tben he is reqiired to be beard. Ifthe law says ^ .. . . '. . . . - ' ... tbat the seine thing is,to be done in accordance with the law in a particular manner thea the satd thing is to be done in accordance with tbe law and in that particular manner or no-t at all. It would be too mucb to sa^ that tbe applicant himsel.f coald have appeared before tfae trial Cpurt and plaeed bis case. Nobody says tbat tbe applican-t was informed that the cballan would be filed on a particular date and the applicant was requlred to appear before the said Court. Frosa the records, it only afi-pears that inunediately after seizure o£ the vebicle the fact was brought to the notice of tbe present applicant. Beyond that, neitfaer tbe prosecution has brougtit anything on the records nor the Courts below have found. Not only an opportunity is to be given to a person, who has a-right to aeet tbe allegations, but the opportunity aust be an effective opportunity and in cases like present tbe objections raised by the applicant cannot be brushed aside very lightly simply observing fhat he himself could have taken part xn the proceedings. The law eiyoins a duty uppn every Court to issue a notice before .'^ fc^ S<ivrtd.on-fc^ ^- confiscating 1a*s»property. A persoa would suffer tbe consequences i£ he is unable to satisfy the judicial conseience ot the Court that tbe o.f.fence was coamitted without his knowledge but once he satisfies the judicial conscience o£ the Court that the offence was committed and without his knowledge ,£ he had no eulpability nor conspired in coamission o£ the said offence then obviously tbe lav would open tbe gates for hia to get justice. In the present case, the learned Courts below were absolutely unjustified to in not grauting opportunlty/the applicant to subait his case before them. 3.he orders relating to confiscation o£ the said vebicle MP-26F/0717 are set aside. The matter is reaitted to the trial Oourt .for decision in accordance with law. The applicant sball gppear before the 'iwuer- ft.-^ Sww^->w^jbue£6ssiiS^Sia - trial Court on 20-12-2000. l^ie Registry • is directed to remit the records to the trial Court so that the same reaches that Court before the date given to the parties, Ihe applicant shall be given proper opportunity to plead his case before the trial Court and lead evidence in case he wants to lead oral evidence before the trial Court. The petition is allewed, Sd/- Acting Chie£ -Ji 16-11-2000