Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ori) 331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
V.NARASINGH, J.
Md. Arman Khan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha - Opposite Party
CRLREV No.146 of 2026
Decided On : 09-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. Das, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA

Confiscation proceedings under state rules cannot prevail over the central MMDR Act; vehicles involved in offenses should be released promptly unless necessary for evidence.

Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 21 - Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling & Illegal Mining And Regulation of Possession, Storage, Trading and Transportation) Rules, 2007 - Confiscation proceedings initiated against vehicle under MMDR Act - Court finds that confiscation under state rules inoperative as MMDR Act is a central legislation. (Paras 7 and 10)

(B) Judicial Review - Revision application against order of J.M.F.C. - Court reiterates the principle that vehicles involved in offences should not be kept idle, can be released with conditions. (Paras 9 and 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order rejecting his request for the release of his truck seized under allegations involving illegal mining under the MMDR Act and state rules.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order was set aside, directing the release of the vehicle upon establishing ownership, subject to conditions.

Issues: The main issues included whether the confiscation proceedings were legally initiated and whether the vehicle's continued retention was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that confiscation proceedings under state rules contradict the provisions of the central MMDR Act. Further, it emphasized the necessity to avoid undue delays in the use of vehicles and the possibility for their release under appropriate conditions.

Result: The revision application was disposed of in favor of the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. background of the vehicle seizure claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments against the order of confiscation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court analysis on confiscation law. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. ruling to release vehicle with conditions. (Para 10)
5. conclusion and order issued. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the state.

2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil, Keonjhar in CMC No.225 of 2025 arising out of 2(C)CC Case No.105 of 2025, whereby the prayer of the Petitioner for release of his vehicle, namely Truck bearing Regd. No. OD-16E- 2065 having its Chassis No.MAT541109J1D 12464 and Engine No.1SB5.9B4S180T181D63685757, stated to be involved in an offence under Section 21 of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) read with Rule 12(1) of the Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling & Illegal Mining And Regulation of Possession, Storage, Trading and Transportation) Rules, 2007 (OMPTS Rules), was rejected.

3. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of the said vehicle, which was seized by the Mining Officials of the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda Circle, on the allegation of its involvement in the commission of an offence under Section 21 of the MMDR Act read with Rule 12(1) of the OMPTS Rules.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Das, assails the impugned order on two counts: first, that the finding of the learned Court to the effect that, since confiscation proceedings have been initiated and the vehicle itself constitutes “evidence”, as such the same cannot be released, is unsustainable; and second, that in view of the provisions contained in the MMDR Act, being a Central legislation, confiscation proceedings under the OMPTS Act could not have been initiated.

5. It is apt to note that the ground relating to maintainability of the proceedings under the OMPTS Rules was admittedly not raised before the Court in seisin. However, since it is a question of law, the same is permitted to be urged before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer and states that there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. To fortify his submission that proceedings under the OMPTS Rules could not have been instituted, learned counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the judgments of this Court inTafzil Sarwar vs. The Dy. Director, Mines Joda Circle, [ Tafzil Sarwar v. Dy. Director, Mines , 2015 SCC OnLine Ori 684] andHiranmaya Das vs. State of Orissa, [ Hiranmaya Das v. State of Orissa , 2017 SCC OnLine Ori 44],as well as M/s. Jai Durga Iron Pvt. Ltd. vs. Superintendent of Police, Sundergarh and Anr, [M/s. Jai Durga Iron (P) Ltd. v. Superintendent of Police, Sundergarh, (2006) 34 OCR 655].

7-A. On a perspicuous analysis of the judgments cited above, this Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, in view of the MMDR Rules being a Central legislation, confiscation proceedings could not have been initiated.

Relevant extract of the judgments is culled out hereunder:

In the case of Tafzil Sarwar, (supra), this Court observed thus;

““xxx xxx xxx

8. ……when the superior legislation specifically empowers a Court for disposal of the property seized under Section 21 (4) of the Act, the Rule made by the State Government for disposal of such property authorizing another authority besides the Court competent, is inoperative… and the State Government in its rule making power under Section 23C of the MMDR Act could not have authorized any other authority for confiscation of the same.

“xxx xxx xxx”

This Court in the case of Hiranmaya Das, (supra) held thus;

“xxx xxx xxx

8. …….Since confiscation of any property seized under sub-section (4) of section 21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereafter ‘1957 A