Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Ful Kumari Devi W/o Ravindra Kumar Ray – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for release the Tractor bearing Registration No. JH-09AJ-3415 along with Trolley bearing Registration No. JH-09K-5088 and for quashing the order dated 02.08.2021 passed in Cr. Revision No. 35 of 2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro. The further prayer is made for quashing the order dated 16.03.2021 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 630 of 2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in connection with G.R. Case No. 285 of 2021, arising out of Chas P.S. Case No. 141 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class cum Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Bokaro.
3. The FIR was instituted on 27.06.2020 against the owner cum driver of Tractor bearing Registration No. JH-09AJ-3415 along with Trolley bearing Registration No. JH-09K-5088 namely Ravindra Kumar Rai on the basis of Letter No. 1657/Mining dated 27.06.2020 issued by the Mining Officer, Bokaro alleging therein that on 25.06.2020 at about 10:00 AM one Tractor bearing Registration No. JH-09
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 amended Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 allows for the release of seized vehicles.
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 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....
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
