IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Mahendra Prasad Verma @ Mahendra Pd. Verma, Son of Late Vola Mahto., Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (Cr.) No. 339 of 2022
Decided On : 24-08-2022
Confiscation - Release of Vehicles - Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 - Rule 54(5)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a petition for release of their seized vehicles, which was rejected on the assumption that the confiscation proceeding is ongoing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there is no bar in the Mines & Minerals Act and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules for releasing the vehicles and the minerals. However, there is a direct bar under Section 52(c) of the Indian Forest Act.
Issues: The main issue was the release of the seized vehicles and the interpretation of relevant rules and acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amended Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 allows for the release of the vehicles, and thus quashed the order rejecting the release.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the release of the vehicles with specific terms and conditions, subject to the final result of the confiscation proceeding and criminal proceedings.
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 kindly be passed. He further submits that the petitioners are not claiming minerals.
4. Ms. Bandana Sinha, learned counsel for the State submits that in the light of Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner is required to pay the double amount of the minerals and the arrangement has been granted in the said Rule.
5. Admittedly, the vehicles of the petitioners were seized on 30.10.2021 and the petitioners filed a petition for release of the vehicles before the learned trial court which was rejected vide order dated 30.06.2022, however the said rejection was on the assumption that the confiscation proceeding is going on and that’s why the release of the vehicles was rejected by the concerned Court.
6. There is no bar in the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 for releasing the vehicles and the minerals in the Statute, however, in the other Statute i.e. the Indian Forest Act, there is direct bar under Section 52(c) of the said Act.
7. Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 is amended by Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017, which reads as under:-
8. In view of the above facts, the order dated 30.06.2022 passed in connection with Margomunda P.S. Case No.61 of 2021, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur is, hereby, quashed.
9. So far as the release of the vehicles is concerned, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioners on their under
AI
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.