Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Sukhdev Murmu @ Sukdeb Murmu, s/o. Suchend Murmu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, the learned counsel for the respondent State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by Shri Ranjeet Kumar, Principal Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Criminal Revision No.05/2022 whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 03.02.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in Jamtara P.S.Case No.124/2021 whereby the prayer for release of Tractor bearing Chasis no.1VY5036DAKA008329, Engine No.py3029d534058 and Tailor Chasis No.JME0006 belonging to the petitioner no.1 as well as tractor bearing registration No.JH10BA6709 and trailor bearing no.JH10BA0645 belonging to the petitioner no.2, Rabilal Murmu, was rejected on the ground that confiscation proceeding is pending, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara.
3. The FIR was lodged on the following premise:-
The central legal point established is that the release of seized vehicles under the MMRD Act 1957 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2004 is not statutorily barred, and release can be allo....
The central legal point established is that the amended Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 allows for the release of seized vehicles.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, in the context of releasing seized vehic....
Confiscation of vehicles requires a competent court's order based on a written complaint, not an FIR; statutory procedures must be followed.
The court emphasized that the vehicle could only be forfeited after the trial concluded and a conviction was held, and directed interim custody of the vehicle to be released in favor of the petitione....
The court emphasized that the forfeiture of the vehicle should only occur upon conviction and that the detention of the vehicle should not cause damage or loss of utility.
The jurisdiction of a criminal court to release a seized vehicle is not barred by pending confiscation proceedings under mining regulations.
The criminal court has jurisdiction to entertain applications for the release of vehicles even during ongoing confiscation proceedings, emphasizing the need for prompt action to prevent damage to sei....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a trial and conviction are necessary before forfeiture of a seized vehicle under the Mines and Minerals Act and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Con....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
