The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a limited prayer for release of his dumper bearing registration No. JH-02F-8939 as it was refused to be released by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with Nuamundi P.S. Case No. 13/07 for the alleged offence against the accusedunder Sections 414/1208 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 21 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as MMDR Act). The petitioner further prayed for quashing of the order dated 18.1.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Cr. Revision No. 1 of 2008 upholding the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate aforesaid.

2. Though the petitioner has prayed in the petition also for the quashment of the entire investigation but the same has not been pressed and, it is rejected as not pressed.

3. The prosecution story in short was that the Officer Incharge of Nuamundi police station on secret information intercepted the aforesaid Dumper of the petitioner on 13.3.2007 which was carrying about 8 tons of Iron Ore and was seized in presence of the independent witnesses to which seizure list was prepared. It was further alleged that the driver and cleaner of the dumper escaped at the sight of the police raiding party. However, it was gathered from the witnesses that the other persons, who had escaped from the Dumper, were Sudhendu Singh and one Parbez both of village Nuamundi doing smuggling of Iron Ores illegally and accordingly, after seizure of the dumper with the iron ores in question F.I.R. was instituted against the driver and the owner of the dumper and Sudhendu Singh and Parbez for the offence under Sections 414/ 1208 IPC as also under Section 21 of the MM(DR) Act.

4. Heard the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. R.R. Mishra, G.P.-II on behalf of the Respondent-State.

5. The learned counsel by raising a short question as to the competence of the informant, a Sub-Inspector of Police, submitted that Section 21(4) of M.M.(D.R.) Act, 1957 provides that vehicles, tools or any other things are liable to be seized by any authority specially empowered under the Act but in the instant case the Dumper of the petitioner was seized by the police officer/informant who was not empowered as such the seizure of the vehicle in question was without jurisdiction. Similarly, Section 22 of M.M.(D.R.) Act provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act or any rules made there under except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government and in the instant case the F.I.R. was lodged by a police officer who was not authorized under the Act and therefore, in that manner also the case instituted against the accused persons was also beyond jurisdiction.

6. The learned counsel urged that Bihar Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2003 was framed under the power conferred by Section 23(C) of M.M.(D.R.) Act and Rule 2(iii) provides that Assistant Mining Officer/District Mining Officer/Geologist posted as Mining Officer in District and other officers authorized by the appropriate Government would be the competent officer in this regard and therefore, neither the FIR drawn nor the seizure list prepared of the alleged seizure of the dumper of the petitioner is maintainable in the eyes of law.

7. Advancing his argument the learned counsel pointed out that the confiscation proceeding if at all initiated in respect of confiscation of the dumper in question is bad in law on the face that seizure was itself illegal and that the prayer of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that the confiscation proceeding of the dumper was going on and therefore the confiscation proceeding should not continue. Finally, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient amoun