Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 644
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
Ram Varan - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6022/2020
Decided On : 17-12-2020
For the Appellant : Arpit Srivastava, Govind Upadhyay, Vikas Kabra, Satish Kumar Balwada, Girish Khandelwal, Bharat Yadav, Brijesh Kumar Bhardwaj, Ashindra Gautam, Mohar Pal Meena, Arvind Sharma, Raj Kumar Kasana, Sandeep Jain, Shyam Bihari Gautam, Praveen Kumar Jain, Deepak Khandelwal, Gordhan Singh Fauzdar, S. Gaharana, Rajendra Sharma, Khizer Iqbal Khan, Om Prakash Pareek, Mukesh Kumar Meena and Nawab Ali Rathore, Advs.
For the Respondents: Ramesh Choudhary, PP
The main legal point established is that in the absence of confiscation proceedings, seized vehicles can be released by the concerned Magistrate under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C., with specific conditions.
Headnote:
Release of Tractors and Trolleys - Seizure by Police Authorities/Mining Authorities/Forest Officials - Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017
Fact of the Case:
The petitions relate to the release of tractors and trolleys seized for illegal mining in Rajasthan. The petitions were filed against the rejection of the release application under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed various judgments and provisions, finding that the power to seize the vehicle lies with the Mining Engineer. It also considered the absence of confiscation proceedings and directed the release of the vehicles with specific conditions.
Issues: The main issue was the release of seized vehicles under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. and the applicability of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power to seize the vehicle lies with the Mining Engineer, and in the absence of confiscation proceedings, the vehicles can be released by the concerned Magistrate under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. It also emphasized the need to avoid keeping seized vehicles at police stations for extended periods.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions, quashed the lower court's orders, and directed the release of the tractors and trolleys with specific conditions.
ORDER
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
1. All these petitions relate to the prayer for release of tractors and trolleys, which have been seized by the Police Authorities/Mining Authorities/Forest Officials for various reasons including carrying "bazri", by way of illegal mining in Rajasthan and selling out the same etc.
2. All these petitions have been filed against the order passed by the concerned Magistrate whereby application under Section 451 & 457 Cr.P.C., for releasing of tractor and trolley was rejected and therefore, the same are being heard together.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed by this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2723/2019 (Asharam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & connected misc. petitions) decided by common order dated 3.2.2020.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the order passed subsequently by this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) NO. 2687/2020 (Nandlal Vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 1.10.2020 to submit that vehicle should be released.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also rely upon the judgment passed in the case of Nathulal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2755/2020) decided on 1.10.2020, which also took into consideration the interim order passed in PIL "Khem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan", (D.B. Civil Writ Petition NO. 4239/2019) as well as judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat: (2002) 10 SCC 283.
6. The Mining Officer of the rank of Mining Engineer (Writ), Jaipur, who is present in court, opposed these petitions and submitted that decision has been taken by Mining Department to challenge the order passed in Asharam (supra) before the Supreme Court by filing of SLP. It is also stated that the Mining Department on the basis of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench in the case of Ganga Ram Vs. State (S.B. Criminal Misc.(Petition) No. 1363/2020) at Principal Seat, Jodhpur decided on 2.9.2020 has received opinion from the Additional Government Counsel at Jodhpur to cite the said judgment before the concerned lower Court for denial of release of the vehicle.
7. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the judgments which have been cited at bar.
8. At the outset, this court finds that in Ganga Ram Vs. State (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1363/2020), decided by Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur on 2.9.2020, the judgment of Asharam (supra) was not cited and was not considered. The judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. (supra) was also not considered and the judgments passed in Harun Versus State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 76/2014), decided on 23rd July, 2015 and Laxman Versus State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 60/2018) were also not brought to the notice of the Court.
9. This court further finds that the interim order passed in the case of Khem Singh (supra) and the order passed by NGT have been considered in Gangaram (supra) and directions have been issued that the petitioners therein would be required to deposit the amount determined by Mining Engineer and after the said amount being determined, the vehicle has been directed to be released.
10. In Asharam's case judgment (authored by me), I had an occasion to examine the dispute and consider the law laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to release of vehicle under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. The provisions of Motor Vehicle Act with regard to permits as well as the conditions for carriage permit were also examined.
11. This court also examined the power of suspension of permits. That apart, the judgment passed in Harun (supra) was considered by this court which took into consideration the offence committed by the vehicle relating to the Rajasthan Forest Act. In another case of Laxman (supra), the Division Bench considered the aspect regarding confiscation by the Mining Department where the reference was made
