Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 1667
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mr. Deepak Maheshwari, J.
Rajendra Singh Rajput - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 161 of 2018
Decided On : 25-01-2018
Mr. P.R.S. Rajawat, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. V.S. Godara, Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent
Criminal courts generally have jurisdiction to release seized property under CrPC Sections 451, 452, and 457, but this jurisdiction may be limited or excluded by specific statutory provisions governing the confiscation and disposal of property seized under special laws like the MMDR Act.
Headnote:
MMDR ACT - SECTION 4(1) & (1A), 21(1), (4) & (4A) - RAJASTHAN MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1986 - RULE 48(5),(6) & (7) - SEIZED VEHICLE - RELEASE - JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURT - LARGER BENCH REFERENCE - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's tractor and trolley were seized for alleged illegal mining under the MMDR Act and Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Petitioner sought release of the vehicle under Section 457 CrPC, but the trial court and revisional court dismissed the application, relying on precedents holding that the authority seizing the vehicle has the power to release it, not the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted conflicting views among coordinate benches of the Rajasthan High Court on the issue of whether criminal courts have jurisdiction to release vehicles seized under the MMDR Act and related rules. It referred the matter to a larger bench for an authoritative adjudication.
Issues: 1. Whether the view expressed by the coordinate bench of this court in Ramswaroop's case and Mala Ram's case is correct? 2. Whether the criminal court has jurisdiction to release the vehicles seized under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986? If yes, at what stage and in which circumstances?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the general provisions of CrPC Sections 451, 452, and 457 yield to specific statutory provisions governing the confiscation and disposal of property seized under special laws like the MMDR Act. In such cases, the authority seizing the vehicle has the power to release it, not the criminal court.
Final Decision: The court referred the matter to a larger bench to resolve the conflict of views among coordinate benches on the issue of criminal courts' jurisdiction to release vehicles seized under the MMDR Act and related rules.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Maheshwari, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This criminal misc. petition has been preferred by accused-petitioner against the order dated 3.1.2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota in Criminal Revision Petition No. 50/2017 (CIS No. 555/2017), whereby the learned Revisional Court while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner confirmed the order dated 5.12.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Etawa in respect of F.I.R. No. 213/2017 registered at P.S. Khatoli, District Kota, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C., 1973 by the petitioner with a prayer to temporarily release the seized vehicle (Tractor) bearing Registration No. RJ-20-RA-6996 alongwith trolley on 'Supurdginama'.
3. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that aforesaid F.I.R. came to be registered on 22.11.2017 of the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and under Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ('MMDR Act') on the premise that the aforesaid Tractor alongwith trolley was found engaged in the work of illegal mining. Petitioner claiming to be registered owner of the aforesaid Tractor alongwith trolley filed application under Section 457 Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Trial Court but the same was dismissed while relying on a decision of this Court, in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1441/2015 (Ramswaroop vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 28.8.2015 and S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 759/2017 (Mala Ram vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 10.3.2017 that the power to release a seized and impounded vehicle, vests in the authority seizing the vehicle and it has no power to release the same. The order dated 5.12.2017 was challenged by the petitioner by way of the aforesaid revision petition, but without any success. The learned Revisional Court affirmed the decision of Trial Court and came to the conclusion that the decision of Trial Court has no jurisdiction to release such vehicle under Section 457 Cr.P.C., 1973
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. If the vehicle is kept in custody for long, its condition will certainly deteriorate and it will cause a national loss. Relying upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, he prays that the vehicle may be released while setting aside the orders passed by the Courts below.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the following judgments passed by Co-ordinate Benched of this Court:-
(I)- Phool Singh vs. State of Rajasthan - S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2682/2012 - decided on 14.8.2012.
(II) - Jagraj Singh vs. State of Rajasthan - S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2802/2015 - decided on 19.5.2017.
(III) - Mahendra vs. State of Rajasthan - S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 4554/2016- decided on 26.4.2017.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer stating that the orders passed by both the Courts below are perfectly justified and in accordance with relevant legal provisions. There is no occasion for this Court to intervene in the matter under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 He has placed reliance on following judgments rendered by Coordinate Benches of this Court:-
(I) - Ramswaroop vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2016) 1 RLW 490 (Raj.).
(II) - Mala Ram vs. State of Rajasthan - S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 759/2017 - decided on 10.3.2017.
7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions submitted by rival sided. Tractor alongwith trolley has been seized on the allegation of being involved in illegal mining. F.I.R. No. 213/2017 was filed for the offence under Section 4/21 of the MMDR Act alongwith other offences under I.P.C. Relevant provision of the MMDR Act and Ruled made thereunder require consideration. Specifically Sections 4(1) & (1A) and
