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 Concession Rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.6782/2020 which has been filed for release of Tata 709 vehicle bearing registration no.JH02M7671 which has been seized in connection with Ormanjhi PS Case No.2009/19 corresponding to G.R. No.2332/21 which has been lodged for the offence punishable under sections 379/34 of the IPC, section 54 and 4 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules and Sections 8,9 of Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rules, 2007 whereby the application of the petitioner has been dismissed as not maintainable which is pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

The First Information Report was registered alleging therein that on written report given by one Shiv Shankar Pandal, Circle Officer, alleging therein that he was on his duty. On 1.12.2019 he reached near Kherabera Booth No.66 then he saw two Turbo 709 vehicle are coming towards him and when he tried to stop them the driver of the vehicle left the vehicle and had fled away and from the vehicle of this petition, it has been alleged that 140 Cft. Stone chips was loaded and they have failed to produce any document. He has further stated that from the local villagers he has come to know that lots of illegal crusher is being running in the said area and accordingly after preparation of seizure list the present first information report has been instituted.

2. Mr. Avishek Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the stone chips in question which was being transported in the vehicle of this petitioner. He submits that, however, a petition for release of the vehicle was filed by the respective owner. He submits that this vehicle is commercial in nature and the trial has not been concluded as yet. He further submits that there is provision of confiscation of the seized article in terms of section 21(4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. He further submits that confiscation is required to be done once the trial is concluded and the petitioner is found to be guilty in the trial. He further submits that in view of amendment in Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 which was incorporated in Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. By virtue 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 goods in question can be released.

3. Mr. Devesh Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that in light of Rule 54(5) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. He further submits that for release of the vehicle, the petitioner is required to follow the procedure as an interim measure.

Since the petitioner is not claiming the stone chips as he has submitted that he is not the owner and only the transporter, there is no need to deposit the double amount if the stone chips in question is not being claimed by the petitioner. For the sake of convenience, section 21(4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957) is quoted hereinbelow:

“21.(4-A) Any mineral, took, 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.”

4. On plain reading of this provision, it is clear that the word used “vehicle or anything seized”, literally the use of word, in the section that any vehicle or anything seized shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance, and at the stage it is found, the section connotes that a finding has to