IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.
Ramvachan Sahni Son of Late Jhagru Sahni - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the District Collector and ors. - Opposite Party
Criminal Miscellaneous No.50380 of 2024 In Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1699 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of seizure and petitioner ownership (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments for vehicle return and incorrect seizure details (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. opposition to the petition and details on vehicle seizure (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court observations on ownership and legal responsibilities (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. quashing of order and release of the vehicle (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. final directions on fine payment and document submission (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present application has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the ‘Cr.P.C.’) as to quash the order dated 15.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-19, East Champaran, Motihari, in connection with Cr. Revision No. 125/2023 arising out of Chakia P.S. Case No. 302 of 2022, whereby and whereunder learned trial court has been pleased to reject the petition, which was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by learned J.M. - 1st Class, Motihari for release of the vehicle namely, JCB bearing Registration No. BR31G-7913, Chassis No. 001848622, Engine No. H0052587 in favour of the petitioner, as the petitioner was the owner of the aforesaid vehicle.
3. The brief facts of this case is that one Chotan Kumar (the informant) alleged that on 13-07-2022 at 11:30 hrs. in the night while he was coming to his house, he saw that illegal mining of sand on the bank of Gandhak river was going on making air dusty, due to which the informant asked the accused persons, named in the FIR, to excavate the sand properly, but all the accused persons surrounded him and one Tunna Singh, who was armed with knife, gave one blow on his head causing head injury. It is further alleged that Abhishek Singh, who was also armed with iron rod, assaulted him, whereafter accused persons taken away Rs. 10,000/- from him and also snatched his mobile phone.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written information Chakia P.S. Case No.-302 of 2022 dated 14-07-2022 u/s 341, 323, 324, 379,34 of the IPC and section-56 of the Bihar Mining Rule, 2019 was instituted against five FIR named accused persons. Petitioner is not accused.
5. After institution of the FIR of Chakia P.S. Case No.302 o f 2022, the investigating officer started investigation and during the course of investigation, on 14-07-2022 itself, the vehicle namely, JCB bearing Registration No BR31G7913, Chasis No.- 001848622, Engine No.-H0052587 was seized, but details of the aforesaid vehicle was not mentioned in the seizure list rather other Chasis No.- 332Y17472095647 and Engine No.- H00052537 in place of aforesaid JCB vehicle was made, which belongs to this petitioner. This fact has also come in Paragraph No.- 3 of the case dairy of Chakia P.S. Case No.- 302 of 2022.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that during the course of investigation, the I.O. of Chakia P.S. Case No. 302 of 2022 made an application with regard to verification of the owner of JCB bearing Chassis No. 332Y17472095647 and Engine No. H00052537.
7. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer received report from the Mining Development Officer East Champaran at Motihari vide letter No.- 469/M dated 06-08- 2022 in which the description of vehicle namely JCB has been given as Chassis No. 332Y17472095647 and Engine No.- H00052537. The Mining development Officer East Champaran at Motihari has also imposed fine of Rs. 4,42,300/- including compounding fees against the aforesaid JCB machine bearing Chassis No.-332Y17472095647 and Engine No. H00052537, not against the JCB of the petitioner bearing Registration No. BR31G7913, Chassis No. 001848622, Engine No. H0052587.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that the Investigating Officer also call for a report from the District Transport Officer, who submitted its report with regard to the vehicle of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the I.O. of this case
AI
The ownership of a registered vehicle must be respected, and any seizure based on incorrect identification violates rights, necessitating timely judicial review.
Fines must be legally justified, and arbitrary imposition is not permitted, particularly when a vehicle is seized and not in violation of road laws.
The court established that vehicles seized for illegal mining can be released upon verification of confiscation proceedings and payment of penalties, ensuring compliance with mining laws.
Legality of administrative penalty and seizure without due process is affirmed.
A valid challan for mining activities protects the holder from claims of illegal mining, provided they comply with the terms of the challan and the circumstances leading to any delays are justifiable....
The Deputy Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to confiscate vehicles seized under the Mines and Minerals Act without a competent court's order, as per Section 21(4A).
A valid seizure is a prerequisite for the confiscation of property, and confiscation without an order from a competent court is not in accordance with the law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.