IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
Vishvendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5972/2020
Decided on : 12-01-2021
Illegal Mining - Release of Seized Vehicles - Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, Section 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C - The judgment discusses the release of vehicles seized during illegal mining activities, referencing various cases and legal provisions such as the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. The court held that the power to release seized vehicles is vested with the concerned Magistrate, and the compounding fee can only be charged after trial completion. The court set aside the orders passed by the lower courts and directed the release of the vehicles subject to specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions were filed for the release of dumper/truck/trailer seized during illegal mining activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined various cases and legal provisions and held that the power to release seized vehicles is vested with the concerned Magistrate. It set aside the orders passed by the lower courts and directed the release of the vehicles subject to specific conditions.
Issues: Release of seized vehicles, compounding fee, jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to release seized vehicles is vested with the concerned Magistrate, and the compounding fee can only be charged after trial completion.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions, quashed the orders passed by the lower courts, and directed the release of the vehicles subject to specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
1. All these petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying for release of Dumper/Truck/Trailer, which were seized, while doing illegal mining. The details of the concerned vehicle are being shown in the annexed Schedule-"A" to this order as per their respective petitions.
2. The release of vehicle has been examined at length by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Versus State of Gujarat: (2002) 10 SCC 283, which has been followed by this Court in Asharam Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2723/2019 along with connected cases decided on 3.2.2020 and Nathulal Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2755/2020 decided on 01.10.2020. In the case of Asharam (supra), the Court has held as under:
12. In Harun Versus State of Rajasthan: D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 76/2014 decided on 23.7.2015 along with connected matters by the Division Bench of this Court wherein it has been held that if a vehicle is found to be involved in committing violation of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and carrying forest produce, the same cannot be released during the pendency of trial on supurdgi to the registered owner of the vehicle, if proceedings of confiscation have already been initiated. Relying upon the law laid down in Harun (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shoukat Khan Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.6307/2016, decided on22.2.2017 has held that supurdginama can be given, if proceedings for confiscation have been initiated. In Laxman Versus State of Rajasthan: D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 60/2018 decided on 6.4.2018 along with connected matters by the Division Bench where a reference was made to the Division Bench on account of different opinion relating to the power of release of vehicles wherein the Division Bench has held as under:
"Most of the judgments cited by learned counsel appearing from the side of the petitioners have ruled in favour of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to release the vehicles under the provisions of Section 451 and/or 457 of the Cr.P.C. A discordant note has however been sounded by Single Bench judgment in Ramswaroop's case, which was later followed in Mala Ram's, supra. These judgments, in view of the analysis of law which we have made herein-above, do not lay down correct law. In fact, the same Single Judge, who delivered the judgment in Ramswaroop's case on 28.08.2015, in his earlier judgment dated 26.10.2012 in Muknaram Vs. State of Rajasthan -S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3285/2012, had held that in a case in which offence has already been compounded by the competent authority and an amount has been imposed as compounding fees and the same has not been paid or deposited by the person concerned, for the purpose of recovery or realization of the same, a condition can be imposed by the Court while ordering release of the vehicle to pay or deposit the same and the Court can refuse to release the seized vehicle even temporarily under Section 457 Cr.P.C, if such deposit is not made. In view of the above discussion, the referred questions are answered in the terms that once the Officer of the Mining Department, who seized the vehicle, has reported such seizure to his Superior Officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease to have the power to release the vehicle, and in that event, the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be empowered to release such vehicle, with or without the condition of deposit of compoun
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.