Back
2013 Supreme(Jhk) 1369
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
R.R. PRASAD, J.
Biva Jha - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr M.P. No. 3095 of 2013,
Decided on : December 19, 2013
Anil Kumar, for the petitioner.
A.P.P., for the State.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the MMDR Act does not contain provisions preventing the release of a seized vehicle in a case for contravention of the Act, and the court may order the release based on the specific circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
MMDR Act - Release of Pay-loader - Section 21(4) and 21(4-A) of the MMDR Act - The court considered the provisions of Section 21(4) and 21(4-A) of the MMDR Act, which allow for the seizure and confiscation of minerals, tools, equipment, or vehicles involved in the commission of offenses under the Act. The court held that there is no provision in the Act preventing the release of a seized vehicle in a case for contravention of the MMDR Act. The court ordered the release of the Pay-loader, which had been hypothecated to a financial institution, upon furnishing a security bond.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the seizure of a Pay-loader in connection with the illegal trading of coal. The lower courts had rejected the application for the release of the Pay-loader, citing the initiation of confiscation proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no provision preventing the release of the seized vehicle under the MMDR Act. It also considered the hypothecation of the vehicle to a financial institution and ordered its release upon the furnishing of a security bond.
Issues: The main issue was whether the courts were justified in rejecting the prayer for the release of the Pay-loader in light of the provisions of the MMDR Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 21(4) and 21(4-A) of the MMDR Act, which did not prohibit the release of the seized vehicle. The court also considered the financial implications of keeping the vehicle in police custody due to its hypothecation to a financial institution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and ordered the release of the Pay-loader upon the furnishing of a security bond.
By the Court.- Heard the parties.
2. This application is directed against the order dated 30.9.2013 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saraikella in Cr. Revision No. 79 of 2013, affirming the order dated 11.9.2013 passed by S.D.J.M. in Misc. Case No.2 of 2013 (Kandra P.S. Case No. 32 of 2013), whereby and whereunder prayer for release of Pay-loader bearing No. JH 05-AT-0640 was rejected.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on receiving secret information that some persons have indulged themselves in doing business of coal clandestinely, a raid was laid behind the hotel of Santosh Majhi, where 1600 MT of coal was found stored. There six trucks as well as one Pay-loader, which is the subject-matter of this case, were found standing over there. The coal was suspected to be the stolen one and at the same time, it was also suspected that some persons have indulged themselves in trading of coal illegally and for that a case was registered for commission of the offence under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code as well as for contravention of the provision of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (for short MMDR Act) and Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rules, 2007. The trucks as well as Pay-loader were seized.
4. Upon seizure of Pay-loader, an application was filed for its release before the Court below which prayer was rejected on the premise .that the confiscation proceeding for confiscating the vehicle has already been initiated. That order was challenged before the revisional Court but the revisional Court by assigning the same reason also rejected the revision application.
5. Being aggrieved with this order, this application has been filed.
6. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that though sub-sections (4 & 4-A) of Section 21 of the MMDR Act do prescribe for confiscation of any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle etc. involved in the commission of offences under the MMDR Act but no bar has been laid down under any of the provisions of the MMDR Act like that of the Forest Act to the effect that upon initiation of a confiscation proceeding vehicle, equipment, tool be not released.
7. Further, it was submitted that on going through the FIR it would never appears that any case is made out under the MMDR Act, as it has never been the case of the prosecution that the said coal, which was found dumped at a place, had been brought there after extracting it illegally and therefor when the police submitted chargesheet against the other accused persons, it submitted charge-sheet only, under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code.
8. Under the situation, the Court below committed illegality in refusing to release the Pay-loader in favour of the petitioner in view of the decision rendered in the cases of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 and General insurance Council lit Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., 2010 (3) JCR 92 (SC) particularly when the vehicle had been hypotheticated to the financial institution.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it does appear that a case was lodged on the allegation that 1600 MT of coal was found stored at a place for doing business illegally. On such allegation, case was registered under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code and also for contravention of the provision of MMDR Act as well as Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rules. However, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the police in course of investigation did not find the case either under the MMDR Act or under the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rules rather it did find the case to be true under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code and thereby the police has submitted charge-sheet against the other accused persons only under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code.
10. At this stage, I need not to go into the question whether the offence is made out under the MMDR Act or not? Rather accepting the case as it has been made out in the FIR, it is to b
