JUDGMENT :

AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for release of tractor bearing Registration No. JH-15M-6179 and trailor bearing Registration No. JH-15M-0162 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1633 of 2020, in connection with Jasidih P.S. Case No. 269 of 2020 under Section 54 (4) of Jharkhand Mines Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and Sections 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.

3. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that on the application filed by the Investigating Officer, confiscation proceeding being Criminal Misc. Case No. 10 of 2020, was initiated under Section 21 MMDR Act by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar with respect to the aforesaid seized tractor and trailor. The petition for release of the seized vehicles was rejected by the court below by the impugned order. The operative part of the order reads as under:

“So far notification of Government of Jharkhand, which empowers the Deputy Commissioner to make confiscation under the Rules is concerned, the same are rules framed by the State Government. Whereas, the Act empowers the court, which have jurisdiction to try the offence to make confiscation under the Act. So, it appears that the rules notified by the State Government are in direct conflict with the provisions of the present Act. In my opinion jurisdiction of this court provided by the act can not be taken away by any Rule framed under the Act. Furthermore, whether this court has jurisdiction or not is an issue to be decided in the confiscation proceeding and not at the time of hearing of this release petition. Furthermore, even if it is accepted that now Deputy Commissioner is empowered to make confiscation under the Rules, then also the seized tractor and trailor are liable to be confiscated. Merely because confiscation proceeding has been initiated at a wrong forum, does not mean that the seized tractor and trailor can not be confiscated.”

On going through the order, it is abundantly clear that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken note of the fact that the Government of Jharkhand had issued the Notification dated 27.01.2018 of the Rules, framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 23C (1) and Section 23C (2) of the MMDR Act, 1957.

4. For appreciating the legality and propriety of the order, it will be useful to refer to the provisions of Section 21 of MMDR Act, which reads as under:

“Section 21. Penalties:

(1) Whoever contravene the provisions of Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (1-A) of Section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakhs rupees per hectare of the area.

(2)................

(3)................

(4) Whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, and, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, such mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer of authority especially empowered in this behalf.

(4-A) Any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized under sub-section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court.

(5)................

(6)................”

The procedure for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 21(1) of the Act, has been prescribed under Section 22, as under:

“Section 22. Cognizance of Offence - No court shall taken cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made there under except upon compla