Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 645
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jaipur Bench
Ramswaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan (Agarwal, J.)
HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL, J.
Ramswaroop
Versus
State of Rajasthan
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1441 of 2015, decided on 28.08.2015
Gaurav Gupta, for Petitioner;
Anil Yadav, P.P., for State
Headnote:Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Sec. 21(4); Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, Rule 48 and Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 451 and 457 — Application for temporarily release of seized vehicle on "Superdginama" — Application rejected — Vehicles which are found involved in the commission of offence under the provisions of the Act and the Rules are liable to be confiscated to the state — There is nothing in the provisions of the Act or the Rules showing that order for confiscation can be made only when accused is convicted — Held — As a result of confiscation the vehicle vests absolutely in the State and all rights of the owner are lost in it — Vehicle cannot be released temporarily in favour of the owner. (Paras 7 & 8)
Petition dismissed.
[kku o [kuu~ ¼fodkl o fofu;e½ vf/kfu;e] 1957] /kkjk 21¼4½% jktLFkku xkS.k [kuu fj;k;r fu;e] 1986] fu;e 48 vkSj na-iz- ] 1973] /kkjk 451] 457 & tCr ;ku dh lqiqnZxhukesa ij vLFkk;h :Ik ls fjgkbZ gsrq vkosnu & vkosnu fujLr fd;k & vf/kfu;e vkSj fu;eksa ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr vijk/k dkfjr djus esa tks ;ku layXu ik;s tkrs gS os ljdkj dks tCr fd;s tkus ds nk;h gksrs gS & ;g n’kkZus gsrq vf/kfu;e ;k fu;eksa ds izko/kkuksa esa dqN Hkh ugha gS fd tfCr gsrq vkns’k dsoy rHkh fd;k tk ldrk gS tc vfHk;qDr dks nks”kfl) fd;k tkrk gS & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & tfCr ds QyLo:i ;ku iw.kZ:i ls ljdkj esa fufgr gks tkrk gS vkSj Lokeh ds lkjs vf/kdkj ljdkj esa fufgr gks tkrs gS vkSj blesa [kks tkrs gS & Lokeh ds i{k esa ;ku dks vLFkk;h :i ls fjgk ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼in la[;k 7 o 8½
;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA
2. The petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 6.1.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputali, District Jaipur in Criminal Revision Petition No.1/2015 whereby the learned Revisional Court while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner upheld and affirmed the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputali in respect of FIR No.502/2014 registered at Police Station Pragpura whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner with a prayer to temporarily release the seized JCB bearing Registration No.RJ.32-EA-0376 (Chasis No.183207962011) on 'Superdginama'.
3. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that aforesaid FIR came to be registered on 1.11.2014 for the offence under Section 379 IPC and for the offence under Section 21/4 of M.M.R.D Act, 1957 and Rules 48 & 68 of the Rajasthan M.M.C.R. Rules, 1986 on the premise that the aforesaid JCB was found engaged in the work of illegal mining. Petitioner claiming to be registered owner of the aforesaid JCB filed application under Section 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court but the same was dismissed mainly on the ground that National Green Tribunal (Central Zone) Bench Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide order dated 13.10.2014 passed in Application No.116/2013 has ordered that each and every vehicle found engaged in illegal mining is liable to be impounded. It was further held by the learned trial Court that as the power to impound a seized vehicle now vests in the Tribunal, trial Court has no jurisdiction to release a seized vehicle. The order dated 17.12.2014 was challenged by the petitioner by way of the aforesaid revision petition, but without any success. The learned Revisional Court also observed that in view of the order passed by the Tribunal, Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to release such vehicle under Section 451 & 457 Cr.P.C.
4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seized JCB was not found in transportation of any mineral obtained as a result of illegal mining and, therefore, the order of Tribunal is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It was further submitted that there is no provision in the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 barring jurisdiction of a Criminal Court and, therefore, illegality and perversity has been committed by the learned Courts below by refusing to release the aforesaid vehicle merely on the basis of order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the Tribunal. It was also submitted that proper conditions can be imposed by the Court before releasing the seized vehicle in favour of the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that when a general order has been passed by the Tribunal to the effect that each and every vehicle found engaged in illegal mining is liable to be impounded, no illegality or perversity has been committed by the learned Courts below.
6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record as well as the relevant legal provisions.
7. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') provides that no person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder. It is thus clear that mining operations cannot be undertaken by a person in any area unless a valid and proper licence is obtained by him. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had a valid and proper licence to undertake mining opera
