Point of Law: It is an admitted position that the vehicle in question stands registered in the name of the petitioner herein and as per the allegation in the impugned complaint, the vehicle in question was used for excavation purpose.

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent-authority to release the Tata Motors Ltd. LPK 2518 TC 38 Model 3118 (Dumper) bearing Registration No.GJ-01-CX-0230 in favour of the petitioner, which was seized in connection with the First Information Report bearing C.R. No.11206005200663 of 2020 registered with Bavalu Police Station, Mehsana under Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4(1) and 4(1)A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules and under Section 4 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2010.

2. The petitioner herein is the registered owner of the muddamal vehicle being Tata Motors Ltd. LPK 2518 TC 38 Model 3118 (Dumper) bearing Registration No.GJ-01- CX-0230, which came to be seized in connection with the impugned First Information Report. The petitioner filed an application under section 451 of Cr.P.C. before the Magisterial Court concerned; however, the same came to be rejected. Against the order of the Magisterial Court, the petitioner preferred a Revision Application being Criminal Revision Application No.19 of 2021 before the Sessions Court. The said revision application also came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that nothing was found during the course of investigation that ordinary sand was being transported illegally and the vehicle in question came to be detained because ordinary sand was kept in the vehicle. It is submitted that the vehicle in question is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner and that if the vehicle is kept in an open plot and continuous seizure, it will lead to corrosion of the vehicle. It was, therefore prayed that the Courts below have seriously erred in not releasing the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner.

4. Ms. Krina Calla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, drew attention of the Court to the reasons assigned by the Courts below in the impugned orders and submitted that the Courts below were completely justified in rejecting the applications since the vehicle in question was used in illegal mining. Learned APP also drew attention to the judgment and order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Criminal Application No.9745 of 2017 decided on 18.12.2017. It was, accordingly, prayed that the present petition deserve to be rejected.

5. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the documents on record. Considering the facts of the case, a reference to the provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C. would be apposite:

“451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases:

When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fitfor the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation—For the purposes of this section, “property” includes- (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody. (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.”

6. Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. mandates that when any property is produced before any criminal Court during the trial, the Court may make order for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the trial. The object of Section 451 Cr.P.C. is well defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) G.L.H. 307, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court have extracted Para– 4 of the judgment delivered in the case o