SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Mad) 297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. RAJAMANICKAM, J.
Anburaj - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tiruvarur Town Police Station, Tiruvarur - Respondent
CRL.RC. No. 276 of 2020
Decided On : 12-05-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M. Subash, Advocate. For the Respondent:T. Shanmuga Rajeswaran, Government Advocate(Crl.Side).

The main legal point established in the judgment is the procedural requirements for seizing and confiscating vehicles involved in illicit mining under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

Headnote:

Criminal Revision Case - Interim Custody of Vehicle - Sections 379, 21(1) of IPC, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - The court discussed the legal provisions under Section 21(4) and 21(4-A) of the MMDR Act, emphasizing the power to seize and confiscate vehicles involved in illicit mining. The court also highlighted the procedure for filing private complaints and initiating confiscation proceedings, as well as the conditions for releasing a seized vehicle for interim custody.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought interim custody of a seized vehicle used for illegal transportation of river sand. The court analyzed the discrepancies in the petitioner's name and the seizure details, and considered the legal provisions under the MMDR Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was the accused and owner of the seized vehicle, and emphasized the failure of the authorities to initiate confiscation proceedings as per the legal requirements.

Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's claim for interim custody, the discrepancies in the seizure details, and the legal procedures for confiscation of the seized vehicle.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the MMDR Act, specifically Sections 21(4) and 21(4-A), and the procedural requirements for initiating confiscation proceedings.

Final Decision: The court directed the designated court to release the seized vehicle to the petitioner for interim custody, imposing stringent conditions to ensure compliance with legal requirements.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w. 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Crl.MP.No.3043 of 2019 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur and set aside the same subsequently grant interim custody of vehicle Mahendra Tractor bearing Regn.No.TN 49 J 3054 with unnumbered Tipper to the petitioner.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.MP.No.3043 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur dated 29.01.2020.

2. The respondent herein has seized a Mahendra Tractor bearing Regn.No.TN 49 J 3054 with unnumbered Tipper as river sand has been illegally transported through the said vehicle and also registered an FIR on 20.10.2019 in Cr.No.385 of 2019 under Sections 379 and 21(1) of IPC.

3. The petitioner herein has filed a petition under Sections 457 and 451 of Cr.P.C., before the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur {Special Court constituted under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957} seeking interim custody. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur, has taken the said petition on file as Crl.MP.No.3043 of 2019 and dismissed the same by the order dated 29.01.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present criminal revision case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle and the same has been falsely implicated in the above case. He further submitted that the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police Station has seized the said vehicle and also arrested the petitioner on 20.10.2019 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur and remanded to judicial custody. He further submitted that the petitioner, after coming out on bail, he has filed a petition in Crl.MP.No.3043 of 2019 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur seeking interim custody of the said vehicle, but the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur, has dismissed the said petition stating that in the FIR, the petitioner’s name has been mentioned as Anandharaj S/o.Ragul. He further submitted that in the FIR also, the petitioner’s name has been mentioned as Anburaj. He further submitted that neither the respondent police nor the revenue officials have initiated any steps for confiscating the said vehicle. Under the said circumstances, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, ought not to have dismissed the petition. He further submitted that if the vehicle is kept in idle and exposed to sun and rain, it would get deteriorated and therefore, he prayed to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur and direct to release the said vehicle for interim custody.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, relied upon the following decisions:

(1) Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat MANU/SC/1110/2002 AIR 2003 638

(2) N.Ramamirtham Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, Koradachery Police Station, Tiruvarur District, Crl.RC.No.737 of 2019 dated 13.08.2019

(3) V. Gopi Vs. The District Collector, Vellore District (WP.No.11252 of 2019 dated 24.04.2019)

6. The respondent has filed a counter stating that on 20.10.2019 at about 7.00 a.m., on Tr.T. Baratha Nehru, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on information, along with his police party went to Valavaikal Junction, Thiruvarur and conducted routine vehicles check up and found that the petitioner/accused illegally carried one unit river sand without any valid permit in his Mahendra Tractor bearing Reg.No.TN49-J-3094 with a unnumbered Tipper. Thereafter, the above said vehicle was seized by the said Sub-Inspector of Police and also arrested the petitioner/accused and recorded his statement and brought to the police station and registered an FIR in Crime No.385 of 2019 under Section 379 of IPC and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 on 20.10.2019 at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top