Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Tuleshwar Mehta – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. Vide order dated 15.12.2022, the respondent-State was directed to file counter affidavit and in spite of that, counter affidavit has not been filed.
3. Further, it appears that this case is covered in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Cr..M.P. No.1332 of 2020, dated 11.05.2022. In that view of the matter, with consent of the parties, this petition is being heard on merit.
4. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.2936 of 2020 (arising out of Tamar P.S. Case No.01 of 2020) by which the petition filed by the petitioner for release of his truck bearing Registration No.JH-02-AC-4880 has been rejected. The prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.25 of 2022. The prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Confiscation Case No.29 of 2020-21. The prayer is also made for direction upon the respondents to release the said truck.
5. Tamar P.S. Case
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 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 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 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 the interpretation and application of Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, in the context of releasing seized vehic....
The jurisdiction of a criminal court to release a seized vehicle is not barred by pending confiscation proceedings under mining regulations.
Confiscation proceedings under state rules cannot prevail over the central MMDR Act; vehicles involved in offenses should be released promptly unless necessary for evidence.
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
