Fines must be legally justified, and arbitrary imposition is not permitted, particularly when a vehicle is seized and not in violation of road laws.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present quashing petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by learned I/C Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in connection with Hulasganj P.S. Case No. 136 of 2024 registered for the offences under sections 379 and 411 of the I.P.C. and section 11, 43, 56, 4, 21 of Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportations & Storage) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2019”).

3. The brief facts of the case is that one Mithilesh Kumar, Mines Inspector, District Mines Office, Jehanabad submitted a written complaint before S.H.O. Hulasganj Police Station, Jehanabad alleging therein that he received a telephonic message from S.H.O. Hulasganj, in which one Sub- Inspector had intercepted a Tractor with sand, registration number was not mentioned on the vehicle, and while seeing the police personnel the driver fled away leaving the tractor. Consequently, the said tractor was brought to the police station. It is further alleged that on such information, the informant visited the police station and conducted an inspection of the vehicle, wherein he found that registration number was not mentioned in the vehicle, however, the informant disclosed the Chassis No. 006505439C1, SL. No. RBDL 00196 KA, Mahindra Model 265 DI and found that said tractor was loaded with sand. Thereafter, the informant imposed a sum of Rs. 35,650/- as fine. The informant further requested the police personnel to instituted a criminal case under the provisions of INDIAN PENAL CODE as well as Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportations & Storage) Rules, 2019.

4. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint, a formal F.I.R. bearing Hulasganj P.S. Case No. 136/2024 dated 25.05.2024 was registered for the offence under the aforesaid provisions of the I.P.C. as well as Rules of 2019.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioner is the owner of the said tractor, which was used for the agricultural purpose.

6. It is submitted that petitioner was deposited a sum of Rs. 35,650/- as fine, which petitioner has deposited in the District Mining Office, Jehanabad, thereafter District Mining Officer vide letter no. 572 dated 03.07.2024 addressed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, in which the concerned officer has apprised the court that aforesaid fine has been deposited by the petitioner with undertaking that he has no objection, if the tractor is released. It is submitted that petitioner submitted a petition before the CJM, Jehanabad for release of the vehicle, but the learned trial court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 63,000/- as fine/tax before the District Transport Officer, Jehanabad and due to non-deposit of the aforesaid amount, the application of the petitioner for release of the tractor has been rejected vide impugned order dated 25.07.2024.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that so far as payment under the Motor Vehicle Act is concerned, the same is not permissible to be raised in the present case, because the tractor was intercepted by the Mines Department and a fine of Rs. 35,650/- was imposed, which was deposited by the petitioner, but the amount of Rs. 63,000/- was raised as a fine for the different offences under Motor Vehicle Act, admittedly, wh