Irfan vs State Of Rajasthan - 2021 Supreme(Raj) 320

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Raj) 320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
Irfan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 742/2021
Decided on : 16-02-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Manish K Sharma, Mr. Aditya Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena, Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Mr. Moti Lal Sharma, Mr. Arshabh Sharma, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Bhardwaj, Mr. Ashindra Gautam, Mr. Arpit Srivastava, Mr. Deepak Khandelwal, Mr. Sanjay Khan, for the Appellant; Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP, for the Respondent.

Headnote:
MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION) ACT, 1957 - SECTIONS 4/21 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTIONS 66, 79, 86 - RAJASTHAN MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 2017 - RULES 54(5), 54(6) - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTIONS 451, 457 - Release of vehicles seized for illegal mining - Conditions to be imposed - Power of Magistrate to release seized vehicles - Confiscation proceedings not initiated - Compounding fee - Personal security - Registration and permit - Undertaking not to use vehicle for illegal purpose.
Fact of the Case:

Numerous petitions were filed seeking the release of tractors, trolleys, trucks, dumpers, and trailers seized by authorities for various reasons, including carrying "bazri" through illegal mining in Rajasthan. The Magistrate had rejected applications for the release of the vehicles under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court, after examining the relevant provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, and the CrPC, held that the Magistrate has the power to release seized vehicles under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC. The Court noted that in the present cases, no confiscation proceedings had been initiated by the concerned department, and therefore, the vehicles should be released to their respective owners/Power of Attorney Holders, subject to certain conditions.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate has the power to release seized vehicles under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC? 2. Whether the vehicles should be released even if confiscation proceedings have not been initiated? 3. What conditions should be imposed for the release of the vehicles?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Magistrate has the power to release seized vehicles under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC. 2. The vehicles should be released even if confiscation proceedings have not been initiated. 3. The conditions for the release of the vehicles include: - Personal security - Registration and permit - Undertaking not to use the vehicle for illegal purposes
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petitions and directed the release of the vehicles subject to the aforementioned conditions.

JUDGMENT

1. All these petitions relate to the prayer for release of tractors and trolleys/trucks/dumper/trailer, 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 Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C for releasing of tractor and trolley/Truck/Trailer/Dumper were rejected and therefore, the same are being heard together.

3. The question regarding grant of release of vehicles has been examined at length 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 wherein this Court has held as under:-

"1. Since the controversy involved in this batch of criminal misc. petitions is similar, therefore, the same cases, the illegal transportation is being found of other minerals without obtaining are being heard together and decided by this common order.

2. The petitioners, in these criminal misc. petitions, have prayed for release of their vehicles, namely, tractors and trolleys, which have been seized by the concerned Police Station. The Registration Certificates of their vehicles have also been seized. The seizure has been effected on account of the tractor along with trolley being found to be used for allegedly committing offences under Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1957") and under Section 379 I PC for illegal transportation of "Bajri". In other royalty receipt, ravanas, transit pass etc. The details of the vehicles are as under:-

Number of S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition

Tractor Registration No.

Trolley Registration No.

SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.2723/2019

RJ-34-RB-1420

SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.6867/2019

RJ-29-RB-4395

RJ-29-EB-0548

SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.6873/2019

RJ-25-RB-4675

RJ-25-EV-0127

SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.6924/2019

RJ-34-RA-4068

RJ-34-EV-0646

SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.6927/2019

RJ-25-RB-7603

RJ-25-EV-0381

SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.6928/2019

RJ-42-RA-2386

RJ-25-EV-2300

SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.6929/2019

RJ-14-RD-2341

RJ-14-EB-0053

SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.6930/2019

RJ-34-RB-1712

RJ-25-EV-421

SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.6931/2019

RJ-25-RB-7829

RJ-25-EV-0389

SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.6932/2019

RJ-25-RB-7801

RJ-25-EV-1926

SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.7561/2019

RJ-25-RB-6522

RJ-25-EV-0121

SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.7560/2019

RJ-25-RB-0600

RJ-25-EV-0599

SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.3656/2019

RJ-34-RA-4706

3. The trial Court has rejected the applications moved under Section 457 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners observing that there is a great loss of revenue caused by illegal transportation of minerals by the tractors along with trolleys and are likely to be used for recurrence of the illegal activity. It has also been noticed that the amount of penalty for compounding the offence under the Act of 1957 has also not been deposited and some of the trolleys are found to be unregistered.

4. Taking into consideration, the flurry of cases coming to this Court with regard to the aforesaid aspect, this Court vide order dated 15.1.2020 observed as under:

"In M/s. Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3428 after examining the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 held as under:-

"22. The question still remains as to whether the taxation authority was right in categorizing tractor-trailer as a separate assessable entity and whether that authority was right in calling upon the appellant to obtain permit under Section 66 of the M.V. Act, 1988."

Thus, a tractor alongwith the trolley (trailer) would constitute goods carriage and would thus require the permit under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1988'). However, it is noticed that the tractors which are being seized alongwith the trolleys carrying Bajri, do not have

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Raj) 320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCHSanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.Irfan - AppellantVersusState Of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 742/2021Decided on : 16-02-2021

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
Irfan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 742/2021
Decided on : 16-02-2021