Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Mahendra Prasad Verma @ Mahendra Pd. Verma, Son of Late Vola Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Bandana Sinha, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.06.2022 passed in connection with Margomunda P.S. Case No.61 of 2021, whereby, the prayer for release of tractor bearing Registration No.JH11AC-6266 and its trailer bearing Registration No.JH11AC-4780 of petitioner no.1 and tractor bearing Registration No.JH10BY-6235 of petitioner no.2 has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is the owner of tractor bearing Registration No.JH11AC-6266 and its trailer bearing Registration No.JH11AC-4780 and petitioner no.2 is the owner of tractor bearing Registration No.JH10BY-6235. He further submits that a petition was filed for release of the vehicles, which was rejected on the ground that confiscation proceeding has been started. He further submits that in view of the amendment in Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the same was incorporated in Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 by virtue of Rule-13 thereof, the order may ki
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....
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....
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 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....
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 jurisdiction of a criminal court to release a seized vehicle is not barred by pending confiscation proceedings under mining regulations.
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
