Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Raj) 1292

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PANKAJ BHANDARI, J.
Jitendra Meena S/o Shri Sharwan Meena – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) Nos. 1875, 4310 of 2016, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) Nos. 3698, 3699 of 2017, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) Nos. 275, 6262 of 2018, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) Nos. 2177, 2183, 2777, 3119, 3534, 4777, 5054 of 2019, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) Nos. 540, 541, 1161, 1868, 2394, 2730, 3114, 3712, 4129, 5065, 5097, 5150, 5829, 5869, 5870, 5910, 5920, 6076, 6124, 6343, 6349, 6368, 6370, 6482, 6499 of 2020, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) Nos. 31, 142, 158, 184, 304, 350, 383, 458, 519, 520, 521, 531, 532, 533, 539, 542, 554, 567, 570, 579, 611, 638, 639, 649, 685, 736, 741, 743, 746, 782, 788, 800, 801, 805, 849, 851, 860, 875, 941, 942, 951, 990, 992, 1056, 1057, 1316, 1320, 1326, 1327, 1328, 1343, 1494, 1566, 1585, 1794, 1869, 1871, 1876, 2052, 2070, 2361, 2371, 2376, 2377, 2379, 2380, 2385, 2542, 2581, 2824, 2830, 2970, 3263, 3264, 3301, 3305, 3317, 3356, 3432, 3438, 3439, 3478, 3479, 3482, 3506, 3563, 3590, 3753, 3754, 3772, 3778, 3783, 3834, 3861, 3885, 3888, 3908, 3927, 3929, 3940, 3949, 3956, 3964, 3971, 3972, 3973, 4030, 4045, 4046, 4047, 4060, 4066, 4072, 4073, 4075, 4076, 4084, 4088, 4089, 4090, 4091, 4114, 4142, 4143, 4147, 4148, 4150, 4152, 4155, 4156, 4157, 4158, 4162, 4163, 4165, 4171, 4172, 4173, 4175, 4176, 4177, 4181, 4183, 4187, 4188, 4189, 4190, 4193, 4197, 4199, 4203, 4209, 4211, 4212, 4230, 4231, 4246, 4247, 4251, 4252, 4254, 4255, 4259, 4262, 4274, 4275, 4276, 4288, 4289, 4292, 4294, 4304, 4316, 4317, 4318, 4323, 4326, 4331, 4335, 4339, 4354, 4355, 4377, 4392, 4397, 4398, 4401, 4406, 4417, 4425, 4426, 4434, 4439, 4464, 4465, 4466, 4467, 4475, 4476, 4501, 4543, 4550, 4572, 4576, 4588, 4590, 4592, 4594, 4596, 4612, 4614, 4616, 4628, 4629, 4630, 4665, 4667, 4693, 4731, 4733, 4744, 4771, 4788, 4801, 4805, 4806, 4807, 4808, 4809, 4810, 4811, 4812, 4813, 4826, 4827, 4828, 4853, 4867, 4868, 4870, 4871, 4872, 4880, 4885, 4890, 4894, 4898, 4905, 4906, 4907, 4914, 4916, 4917, 4919, 4921, 4923, 4927, 4934, 4935, 4936, 4937, 4941, 4942, 4943, 4944, 4945, 4947, 4951, 4955, 4957, 4958, 4965, 4967, 4968, 4969, 4970, 4973, 4975, 4985, 4986, 4989, 4992, 4995, 4999, 5001, 5002, 5014, 5015, 5016, 5020, 5025, 5026, 5027, 5029, 5030, 5036, 5037, 5044, 5045, 5046, 5047, 5049, 5052, 5065, 5069, 5088, 5091, 5097, 5098, 5099, 5102, 5105, 5109, 5110, 5112, 5116, 5127, 5129, 5131, 5133, 5134, 5135, 5137, 5163, 5174, 5204, 5213, 5218, 5223, 5227, 5228, 5229, 5268, 5269, 5295, 5297, 5306, 5308, 5312, 5313, 5322, 5327, 5328, 5329, 5330, 5332, 5337, 5340, 5347, 5348, 5349, 5388, 5391, 5392, 5393, 5394, 5398, 5399, 5404, 5432, 5433, 5440, 5442, 5445, 5453, 5454, 5460, 5461, 5475, 5476, 5478, 5480, 5481, 5489, 5490, 5491, 5492, 5493, 5494, 5495, 5496, 5497, 5498, 5499, 5500, 5507, 5509, 5533, 5570, 5602, 5611, 5619, 5643, 5647, 5649, 5661, 5671, 5674, 5677, 5698, 5706, 5715, 5726, 5727, 5756, 5759, 5760, 5761, 5762, 5768, 5774, 5775, 5787, 5789, 5793, 5795, 5826, 5829, 5830, 5831, 5832, 5833, 5834, 5835, 5842, 5843, 5845, 5846, 5847, 5848, 5849, 5851, 5852, 5853, 5854, 5857, 5860, 5861, 5878, 5879, 5880, 5882, 5883, 5886, 5887, 5888, 5896, 5897, 5900, 5901, 5906, 5907, 5909, 5910, 5911, 5912, 5913, 5914, 5920, 5935, 5939, 5940, 5941, 5942, 5947, 5951, 5957, 5958, 5959, 5960, 5970, 5975, 5977, 5978, 5979, 5981, 5982, 5984, 5985, 5992, 5993, 5997, 6011, 6017, 6029, 6032, 6044, 6047, 6053, 6054, 6055, 6056, 6060, 6061, 6062, 6071, 6072, 6073, 6079, 6080, 6081, 6083, 6084, 6113, 6168, 6169, 6172, 6173, 6199, 6200, 6232, 6233, 6246, 6253, 6263, 6318, 6320, 6324, 6326, 6351, 6423, 6443, 6448, 6453, 6465, 6466, 6490, 6516, 6519, 6521, 6530, 6531, 6536, 6539, 6540, 6541, 6543, 6549, 6550, 6551, 6552, 6553, 6555, 6562, 6564, 6565, 6566, 6567, 6568, 6572, 6574, 6584, 6596, 6602, 6603, 6613, 6623, 6625, 6630, 6651, 6654, 6656, 6659, 6660, 6666, 6673, 6676, 6677, 6681, 6682, 6683, 6684, 6685, 6686, 6687, 6688, 6689, 6690, 6691, 6713, 6715, 6716, 6717, 6718, 6723, 6724, 6725, 6733, 6745, 6770, 6828, 6829, 6830, 6840, 6882, 6885, 6889, 6892, 6893, 6898, 6904, 6906, 6912, 6915, 6938, 6939, 6944, 6954, 6957, 6960, 6965, 6966, 6970, 6978, 6979, 6982, 6984, 6989, 6990, 6991, 6992, 6993, 6995, 6998, 7002, 7005, 7007, 7010, 7011, 7012, 7014, 7018, 7026, 7027, 7033, 7066, 7067, 7068, 7070, 7071, 7073, 7074, 7075, 7090, 7127, 7128, 7129, 7143, 7161, 7204, 7210, 7236, 7242, 7243, 7244, 7245, 7247, 7260, 7262, 7264, 7267, 7292, 7298, 7302, 7304, 7309, 7310, 7318, 7329, 7339, 7340, 7349, 7350, 7351, 7353, 7354, 7355, 7356, 7357, 7358, 7359, 7360, 7362, 7364, 7365, 7366, 7367, 7368, 7369, 7370, 7371, 7372, 7373, 7374, 7375, 7376, 7379, 7382, 7383, 7384, 7385, 7386, 7402, 7407, 7420, 7421, 7424, 7426, 7428, 7429, 7430, 7431, 7433, 7435, 7436, 7437, 7438, 7439, 7440, 7443, 7444, 7448, 7456, 7459, 7460, 7462, 7466, 7467, 7468, 7470, 7471, 7472, 7473, 7486, 7489, 7490, 7497, 7498, 7501, 7503, 7506, 7510, 7511, 7513, 7516, 7520, 7526, 7529, 7530, 7531, 7532, 7533, 7534, 7538, 7545, 7554, 7557, 7558, 7567, 7573, 7575, 7576, 7592, 7593, 7594, 7611, 7614, 7615, 7632, 7645, 7646, 7652, 7653, 7654, 7655, 7659, 7691, 7724, 7732, 7738, 7757, 7837, 7840, 7843, 7847, 7853, 7854, 7858, 7860, 7862, 7863, 7864, 7865, 7866, 7867, 7868, 7869, 7870, 7871, 7872, 7874, 7875, 7876, 7877, 7880, 7881, 7882 of 2021
Decided On : 01-12-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sandeep Jain, Praveen Kumar Jain, Girraj P. Sharma, Suresh Kumar Dhenwal, K.K. Chhawal, Anil Upman, Bharat Yadav, I.P. Jakhar, Hemant Kumar Sharma, Kuldeep Kumar Sharma, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Atul Kumar Jain, Aashish Nagarwal, Pallav Choudhary, D.D. Khandelwal, Ripu Daman Singh, Naruka, Pushpendra Kumar Pandey, Praveen Kumar Jain, Mukesh Kumar Meena, Rohit Khandelwal, Abdul Wahid Naqvi, Vinod Kumar Sharma, Lata Sharma, Dilip Singh, Dharmendra Gurjar, Deepak Khandenwal, Pawan Kumar Verma, Arvind Sharma, Raghuraj Singh Rajawat, Sangram Singh Shekhawat, Jiteshu Chugh, Shyam Bihari Gautam, Aditya Mishra, Dinesh Kumar Garg, S. Gaharana, Krishan Chander Sharma, Amitabh Vijaywargia, Vishivas Saini, Satish Kumar Khandelwal, Tarun Jain, Amit Dadhich, Brijesh Kumar Bhardwaj, Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Dheeraj Tripathi, Umashanker Pandey, S.L. Sharma, Hanish Khan, Vijendra Yadav, Rohan Jain, Rahul Agarwal, Kishan Swami Vishesh Gupta, Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi, Jiya Ur. Rahman, Umesh Dixit, Ashindra Gautam, Syed Shahid Hasan, Dushyant Singh Naruka, Brahm Singh Gurjar, Vikas Kabra, Mohit Pareek, Mahendra Sharma, Amit Ratnawat, Dev Krishna Purohit, Krishan Kant Sharma, Mahender Meena, Amit Jindal, Kailash Chander Sharma, Gordhan Singh Fauzdar, Mohar Pal Meena, Arpit Srivastava, Ashish Sharma, Manak Chand Jain, Bharat Raj Yogi, Raj Kumar Kasana, Sandeep Kumar, Maheshwari, Prahlad Sharma, Ram Rakh Sharma, Rajendra Singh Tanwar, M.S. Choudhary, Ajeet Singh Devanda, Shivraj Chauhan, Chaman Singh, S.N. Meena, Mohammad Aslam, Vijay Singh Yadav, Nawab Ai Rathore, Sanwar Mal, Girish Khandelwal, Kirodee Lal Meena, Harendra Singh, Surendra Singh Rajawat, Mukesh Kumar Goyal, Hari Krishana Sharma, Ramniwas Meena, Moti Lal Sharma, Manish K. Sharma, Timan Singh, Om Prakash Sharma, Avadesh Kumar Purohit, Dilip Singh Kurka, Khurshid Ahmed Khan, Jitendra Choudhary, Pawan Sharma, B.L. Dhakar, Aman Ali, Sumit Khandelwal, Ravindra Kumar Paliwal, H.C. Mourya, Teeka Ram Meena, Mahendra Kumar Naharwal, Kumud Singh, Bheem Singh Dabla, Sangram Singh Shekhawat, Ajeet Singh Devanda, Rajendra Yadav, Lakhan Singh Meena, R.B. Sharma, K.K. Bairwa, Jagdish Singh Chauhan, Chandarpal Singh Sujawat, Malkhan Chaturvedi, Mukesh Pal Jadoun, Ramawtar Meena, Vivek Joshi, Rajneesh Gupta, Dushyant Jain, Anil Kumar Jain, Anil Jain, Rajeev Bhushan Bansal, Mahendra Meena, Syed Ali Naqvi, Dinesh Pareek, Poonam Chand Sharma, Ashwani Kumar Kuswaha, Pankaj Kumar, Manish Kumar Sharma, Dushyant Jain, Sanjay Khan.
For the Respondents: M.S. Singhvi, Sheetanshu Sharma, Zakir Hussain, F.R. Meena.

The main legal point established is the need for parity in the treatment of wrongdoers and the imposition of conditions for the release of vehicles to prevent illegal mining.

Headnote:
Defects - Vehicles Seized - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Motor Vehicles Act, Police Act, Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 - Section 379 of IPC, Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 38 of the Police Act, Rules 54 & 60 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 - The court discussed the release of vehicles seized by different authorities under various acts and rules, emphasizing the need for parity in treatment of wrongdoers and the imposition of conditions for release of vehicles to prevent illegal mining.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought release of vehicles seized by different authorities under various acts and rules. The court considered the disparity in the treatment of wrongdoers and the need to prevent illegal mining.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a need for parity in the treatment of wrongdoers and imposed conditions for the release of vehicles to prevent illegal mining.
Issues: Disparity in treatment of wrongdoers, prevention of illegal mining, release of seized vehicles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for parity in the treatment of wrongdoers and imposed conditions for the release of vehicles to prevent illegal mining.
Final Decision: The court allowed the release of vehicles subject to specific conditions, including the deposit of compounding fees, compensation, and an undertaking to refrain from illegal mining.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The court emphasizes the importance of parity in the treatment of wrongdoers involved in illegal mining activities, whether vehicles are seized by police or mining authorities (!) .
The court recognizes that vehicles seized under various acts and rules, including the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, Motor Vehicles Act, Police Act, and Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, are subject to different procedures for release. The court advocates for uniform conditions to be applied to ensure fairness (!) .
The court notes that in cases where vehicles are seized by police authorities, the release procedures often do not include imposing costs related to minerals or fines, unlike those seized by mining authorities. This disparity is addressed by the court to maintain consistency (!) .
The court permits the release of seized vehicles under certain conditions, such as the deposit of compounding fees, compensation as determined by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), and the cost of minerals. Additionally, an undertaking must be submitted by the petitioner that they will refrain from illegal mining in the future (!) (!) (!) .
The court underscores that the primary aim is to prevent illegal mining and ecological damage. It emphasizes that offenders should not be allowed to escape liability merely by paying penalties, and that stringent conditions are necessary to act as deterrents (!) .
The court clarifies that even if petitioners are willing to face trial, vehicles will only be released upon fulfilling the specified conditions, including payment of fines and costs, to ensure parity and discourage illegal activities (!) .
The court acknowledges that vehicles seized under different acts can be dealt with in accordance with the relevant rules and that authorities such as the mining department are competent to impose conditions for release, including compounding offences and collecting fees and fines (!) .
The court disposes of the petitions by allowing the release of vehicles after compliance with the prescribed conditions, which include depositing fees, fines, and submitting undertakings, thereby promoting effective deterrence against illegal mining activities (!) (!) .
The court also highlights that proceedings in criminal cases will be disposed of once the conditions for release are fulfilled, without the need for quashing FIRs or proceedings, to balance justice and deterrence (!) .
Overall, the decision aims to ensure equitable treatment of all wrongdoers involved in illegal mining, enforce compliance with environmental and legal standards, and strengthen deterrent measures to prevent future violations (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.

ORDER :

1. Defects, pointed out by the Registry, in any of the petitions, are waived.

2. First part of the present bunch of cases pertains to:

(A) Vehicles seized by the police under Section 379 of IPC and Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1957”).

(B) Vehicles seized under Motor Vehicles Act.

(C) Vehicles seized under Section 38 of the Police Act and Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2017”) (hereinafter referred to as “the first category of cases”).

3. Second part of the present bunch of cases pertains to cases where the vehicles have been seized by the Mining Department under Section 4/21 of the Act and are being dealt with in accordance with Rules 54 & 60 of the Rules of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “second category of cases”).

4. The petitioners had approached and prayed before the Court below for release of the vehicles under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. but the same was rejected. Some of the petitioners thereafter preferred revisions, which also stand rejected by the Revisional Court.

5. On the last date, the counsel for the petitioners were heard. The question of parity struck the Court, as the vehicles which were seized by the Mining Department, were being released after compounding the offence and after collecting the compounding fee, cost of mineral and the fine imposed by the National Green Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “NGT”) whereas the vehicles which were seized by the police, were being released only after obtaining a surety and bank guarantee. In the latter case, no cost of mineral and fine was imposed as per the directions of the NGT while releasing the vehicles.

6. This Court was of the view that when two vehicles starting from the same quarry containing the same material, weighing similarly, are seized, one by the police and other by the Mining Department, then why the wrong doers should not be treated at par. The Court, therefore, requested learned Advocate General to assist the Court. Learned Advocate General sought time to seek instructions from the State and having used his good office, he has come with the approval of the State to treat both the categories of wrong doers at par.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that for offence under Section 21 of the Act of 1957, a complaint has to be filed by a person authorized by the appropriate Government and in absence thereof, the Court is barred from taking cognizance under Section 22 of the Act of 1957. It is also contended that since the police has seized the vehicles and police is not authorized under the Act of 1957 to file a complaint, no cognizance can be taken under Section 22 of the Act of 1957. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance is placed on the judgment in Imran and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, Application U/s 482 No. 16700 of 2019 decided by the Allahabad High Court on 10.7.2019 wherein the Allahabad High Court has held that the police is competent to investigate the offence under the Act and under the Indian Penal Code, but the Court can take cognizance only when a complaint in writing is submitted by the authorized officer.

8. It is further contended that in view of the judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, vehicles cannot be withheld and should be released. It is contended that fine can be imposed on the petitioners only after they are held guilty. The prayer made before the Court is that the vehicles should be released only on furnishing of surety.

9. It is also contended that some of the petitioners are not willing to compound the offence and are ready to face the trial and therefore, their vehicles should be released only on furnishing of surety.

10. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State contends that there is rampant illegal mining in the State of Rajasthan and the petitioners, who are involved in the