IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Ful Kumari Devi W/o Ravindra Kumar Ray – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. M.P. No. 2083 of 2021
Decided On : 18-08-2022
Illegal Mining - Release of Tractor and Trolley - Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, Rule 54(5) - The court discussed the amendment in Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, and its incorporation in Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. It also highlighted the requirement for the petitioner to pay double the amount of minerals as an interim measure for release of the vehicle. The court quashed the previous orders and imposed conditions for the release of the vehicle.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition for the release of a tractor and trolley seized in connection with illegal mining allegations. The petitioner claimed rightful ownership and authorization of the vehicle, presenting relevant documents. The State argued that as per Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner was required to pay double the amount of minerals for release.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no statutory bar for releasing the vehicle and minerals under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. However, it noted a direct bar under Section 52(c) of the Indian Forest Act. The court quashed the previous orders and imposed conditions for the release of the vehicle.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership and authorization of the seized vehicle, the requirement to pay double the amount of minerals for release, and the statutory provisions governing the release of seized vehicles and minerals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, and the absence of a statutory bar for releasing the vehicle and minerals under certain statutes. The court also considered the need for an indemnity bond and surety for the release of the vehicle.
Final Decision: The court quashed the previous orders and allowed the petition for the release of the vehicle, imposing conditions for its release subject to the final result of the confiscation proceeding and criminal proceedings.
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-09AJ-3415 along with its Trolley bearing Registration No. JH-09K-5088 was seized while the said Tractor was carrying 100 cft. sand without any legal Mining Transport Challan and thereafter the said tractor was seized and seizure list was prepared.
4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the rightful owner of the said tractor and she did authorise the said tractor to her husband namely Ravindra Kumar Rai to operate the said tractor. He further submits that there is no dispute with regard to ownership of the said tractor. The Tax Invoice, Policy Certificate and Fitness Certificate are annexed with the petition. He also submits that for release of the said tractor, a petition was filed before the learned trial court, which was rejected vide order dated 16.03.2021 and that was challenged before the revisional court in Cr. Rev. No. 35 of 2021, which was also dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2021. 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 petitioner is not claiming minerals.
5. Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, 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. He further submits that for release of the minerals and the vehicle, the petitioner is required to follow the procedure as an interim measure.
6. Admittedly, the vehicle of the petitioner was seized on 25.06.2020 and the petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicle before the learned trial court which was rejected vide order dated 16.03.2021, however the said rejection was on the assumption that the confiscation proceeding is going on and that’s why the release of the vehicle was rejected by the concerned Court.
7. There is no bar in the Mines and 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.
8. 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:
AI
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.
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.