The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's jurisdiction to release a vehicle involved in illegal mining and transportation of minerals, the validity of confiscation orders, and the need for compliance with due procedure as per the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and related rules.

JUDGMENT

G.S.Sandhawalia, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari. Vide the said order, the revision petition filed by respondent no. 2, the Mining Officer has been allowed and the order dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure P-4) whereby, vehicle bearing No. HR46 D 5925 which had been ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner being registered owner on superdari to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- and one surety in the like amount was set aside.

2. The reasoning which prevailed with the Revisional Court was that under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act'), no proceedings were pending under the Act and neither any complaint had been filed nor any FIR had been registered. Reliance was placed upon Rule 104 of the Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012 (in short 'the 2012 Rules) to hold that the mineral was liable to be seized alongwith the impounding of the vehicle used for such unauthorized operation and could be released only on realisation of the payment of the price of the mineral and the applicable royalty for the mineral being transported in addition of fine which should not be less than Rs.10,000/-. Reference was also made to the orders of the National Green Tribunal (in short 'NGT) dated 09.02.2019, which were modified on 05.04.2019 and 26.07.2019 and that the amount of compensation for damages so caused were to be charged as per the table. Reliance was placed upon the orders of the Apex Court in Crl. Appeal No. 524 of 2019, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Uday Singh dated 26.03.2019 and that the Tribunal had also referred to the said order and the principle laid down in State of West Bengal and others vs. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129 vs. was followed which admittedly pertains to confiscation proceedings under the Wild Life Act, 1972. The judgments of the Rajasthan High Court were distinguished on the ground that the said Rules provided that the report of seizure of such vehicle had to be made to the Magistrate having jurisdiction within 72 hours and there was no such corresponding provisions in the 2012 Rules.

3. Resultantly, it was held that the Magistrate could not exercise his powers under Section 451/457 in the absence of any complaint or any FIR by the police as the property would only be produced before the criminal Court during the inquiry or trial. Reliance was also placed on Rule 109 of the 2012 Rules that an appeal was provided and since there was proper efficacious remedy available, the Illaqa Magistrate could not be approached for release of the vehicle on superdari. The judgment of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 was, thus, distinguished in the absence of any criminal proceedings before the Magistrate. The receipt CRU85000103, upon which the petitioner was relying, was being disputed to be a fabricated document which was to be verified by respondent no. 2 and necessary action was to be taken as per law and resultantly, keeping in view the fact that it was a case pertaining to preserving the environment, the order was set aside.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has accordingly argued that in the absence of any confiscation order being passed under Section 21(4A) of the Act and the said order could have only been passed by the Court competent to take cognizance of the offence and the vehicle could only be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such Court. Thus, it is submitted that the confiscation order now passed during the pendency of the proceedings on 21.08.2020 (Annexure R-5) was, thus, also liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed upon Rule 106 of the 2012 Rules that offences were cognizable only on written complaint and there is a limitation provided of 3 months. The seizur