IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND, J.
Sadhan Nandi, S/o. Amar Nandi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr. Rev. No. 1520 of 2023
Decided On : 16-02-2024
(A) Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 - Rule 11 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451 - Release of seized vehicle - The trial court rejected the release application based on pending confiscation proceedings, relying on an inapplicable Supreme Court judgment. The court clarified that jurisdiction to release the vehicle is not barred and must be exercised judiciously. (Paras 11, 14, 15)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that mere pendency of confiscation proceedings does not preclude the criminal court from entertaining applications for release of vehicles. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the release of a truck seized during a raid for illegal mining, asserting ownership and willingness to comply with court conditions.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's reliance on an irrelevant Supreme Court judgment was erroneous; the jurisdiction to release the vehicle was not excluded.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in denying the release of the vehicle based on pending confiscation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the jurisdiction of the criminal court to release the vehicle is not ousted by the pending confiscation proceedings, and the trial court must consider the application afresh.
Result: Criminal Revision allowed; the impugned order set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Chand, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State are present.
2. The instant criminal revision has been directed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Rajmahal in Taljhari P.S. Case No.38 of 2023, whereby for release of the truck bearing Registration No. WB-59C/8906 has been rejected.
3. The brief facts leading to this criminal revision are that as per prosecution case the informant/Circle Officer, Taljhari has carried out the surprise raid on 27.05.2023 having received information that near Mouza Bekchury, M/s Md. Samim Stone Works operating the stone crusher machine in plot No.27 in the area of 3 acres and 2 kathas of Mouza Bekchury. The petitioner has also the dealer registration form-B issued by the Mining Department bearing registration No.J062021777 valid up to 28.06.2022 and also the certificate issued by the Pollution Department valid up to 31.03.2024 but the order of “Close down the operation of the Unit with immediate effect” passed by the Member Secretary, JSPCPB, Ranchi vide letter No.717 dated 10.04.2023. Despite that the illegal excavation of the stone and the same were being crushed to prepare the stone chips was carrying on. At the time of the raid, the truck bearing registration No. WB25E 0749 was found loaded with 900 cubic ft. stone chips, its driver was Nitish Kumar Yadav. No paper was shown by him on demand. This truck was also seized. In that work other vehicles were also involved, details of which are also given in the schedule. At Sr. No.4, the truck bearing registration No. WB59C 8906 is shown empty and the same was also seized thereon. In view of the allegations made, case crime No.38 of 2023 was registered with the Taljhari Police Station under Sections 175, 379, 411 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4/ 54 of the JMMC Rule, 2004, 07/09 of the Jharkhand Mineral Transportation and Storage Rule, 2017 and Sections 21(1), 21(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957.
4. The owner of the truck bearing registration No. WB59C 8906 had moved the application for release of the said truck before the learned trial Court with these averments that the he is the bona fide owner of the seized truck, which is the commercial vehicle and the same is being detained in the police station, so he has been suffering heavy loss day to day. He undertakes that he would produce the same vehicle as per the direction of the Court and also ready and willing to furnish the sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
5. The report issued by the In-charge Officer of District Legal Cell Branch, Sahibganj addressed to the Station-In-charge Officer, Taljhari Police Station dated 31.10.2023 are on record, which shows that the confiscation proceeding of the vehicles involved in the offence including the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No. WB59C 8906 is still pending.
6. The learned trial Court rejected the release application of the said vehicle on the very ground that since the confiscation proceeding was pending and relied upon the judgment passed by the of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Uday Singh in Criminal Appeal No.524 of 2019 dated 26.03.2019.
7. Aggrieved from the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, the instant Criminal Revision was directed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law. The learned trial Court has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was not application at all in the facts and circumstances of this case in hand. It is further stated that there is no bar in releasing the said vehicle in the rule of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 though the confiscation proceeding under Section 11 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 power is given to the Deputy Commissi
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Uday Singh, Criminal Appeal No.524 of 2019
AI
The jurisdiction of a criminal court to release a seized vehicle is not barred by pending confiscation proceedings under mining regulations.
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 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 concerned Magistrate has the power to release the vehicle under Sections 457 Cr.P.C. unless the goods/vehicle have been confiscated. Prompt exercise of powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is importa....
Confiscation proceedings under state rules cannot prevail over the central MMDR Act; vehicles involved in offenses should be released promptly unless necessary for evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of the Mining Engineer to seize the vehicle and the authority of the concerned Magistrate to release the seized vehicle under certain con....
The Act, 1957, and Section 21(4-A) vested power of dealing with confiscated tools, equipment, or vehicles in the Court, overriding the provisions of Rule 72(6) of the Rules, 2021.
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.