Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Md. Zahid Alam S/o Abdul Motalliv – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.01.2020 passed in Criminal Revision No. 410 of 2019, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for release of the vehicle in question has been rejected and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro dated 07.11.2019 passed in G.R. No. 738 of 2019, arising out of Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 52 of 2019 was affirmed:
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 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....
Confiscation of vehicles requires a competent court's order based on a written complaint, not an FIR; statutory procedures must be followed.
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....
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 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 Act does not provide for confiscation of the vehicle, and forfeiture can only occur after a trial concludes with a conviction. The commercial nature of the vehicle and relevant legal provisions a....
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.
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
