The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict compliance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and the imposition of stringent conditions when releasing seized property to prevent further offenses.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-owner of Tata Tipper bearing Reg.No.MH-04/DD-[Corrected vide Court order dated : 31/07/2017]0883, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ by quashing the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Kalabuargi in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.90/2016 and also the order dated 06.06.2016 passed in Crime No.164/15 by the learned II Addl. JMFC Judge, Kalaburagi, rejecting the application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 31.11.2015, the complainant-PSI along with his staff, Revenue Inspector and Panchas went to Nadi Sinnur on the credible information about illegal transportation of the sand from the river and loading into the lorry with the help of Hitachi and when the said officials came near the spot, all the persons ran away from the spot, except the driver of the tripper and on enquiry to drivers of tipper about permission and license for transportation of sand, it was informed that no permission is obtained from concerned department, due to which vehicles on the spot including tipper of the petitioner were seized under seizure panchanama and suo-moto FIR was registered against the driver of the tipper and other unknown accused.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. It is also contended that though the vehicle has been released earlier in Crime No.127/2015, even though the said vehicle has not been involved, again the same has been seized and a false case has been registered against the petitioner. It is also contended that if the said vehicle is left in the open place, it is going to be rusted and it would become valueless and useless. It is further contended that the petitioner has raised financial assistance from the financier and if the vehicle is kept idol, it may result in heavy financial loss to the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner also filed an affidavit to the effect that in future the said vehicle will not be used for any such offence and in the event if it is used, the same may be unconditionally confiscated to the Government. It is further contended that if the vehicle is released, the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing of the petition.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the said vehicle has been previously used in Crime No.127/2015 and again the petitioner/owner has continued the said illegal transportation of the sand by using the same vehicle. Thereby, he has violated the conditions, which have been imposed at the time of releasing the vehicle. He would also contend that as per Section 21 (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘MMDR Act’ for short), it indicates that if the vehicle is used for the purpose of transportation of sand illegally without permit or licence, the same is liable to be confiscated. He would further contend that when once the vehicle has been seized, it becomes the property of the Government and in the strict interpretation of Provisions of Section 21(4), the same is liable to be confiscated to the Government. He would further contend that if the vehicle is released in favour of the petitioner, again he may use it for the similar purpose and there is likelihood of changing the nature, color and identity of the vehicle which going to be affected at the time of trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. I have gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader and also perused the records.

7. Before going to discuss the