Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 23.1.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot in Miscellaneous Case No. 31A/xii/2014 under Section 4/21 Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation Act, P.S. Mau, District Chitrakoot whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the application of the revisionist for release of his tractor.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and have carefully perused the records.

The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is registered owner of the tractor in question. The vehicle in question was duly insured by Oriental Insurance Company. His tractor was seized by the Mining Officer, Chitrakoot on 6.1.2014 on the allegation that it was found carrying illegal sand without proper transportation pass (MM 11). The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the sand was not illegal but it was purchased by the revisionist from a contractor holding valid license to store the sand. The contractor has issued Form (MM 11) to the revisionist but his tractor, was seized in a mala fide manner by the Mining Officer, Chitrakoot. The revisionist moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot for release of his tractor but the learned Magistrate dismissed his application on the ground that without filing of a complaint by the Mining Officer, he has no jurisdiction to pass an order of the release of vehicle especially keeping in view the fact that the applicant has not even deposited any compounding amount.

3. The learned counsel for the revisionist has questioned the validity of the aforesaid order dated 23.1.2014 by arguing that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the order in a cursory manner and has illegally rejected the application moved by the revisionist for release of his tractor merely on the ground that as no complaint has been filed in the Court regarding the offence, therefore he has no jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the Magistrate was fully competent and empowered to release the vehicle even if the complaint was not filed, in view of Section 457 Cr.P.C. In this regard learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a judgment of this Court passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in case of Smt. Sudha Kesarwani v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(1) ADJ 498. He has also placed reliance on the law laiddown by the Apex Court in landmark case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat, 2003 (46) ACC 223 (SC). On the aforesaid ground it has been prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate be directed to release the tractor alongwith trolly in favour of the revisionist.

4. The State has filed counter-affidavit opposing the revision mainly on the ground that the vehicle in question was seized under Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act. The sand was found loaded on the tractor but the driver had failed to show any valid paper or permit to carry such sand, so the vehicle was seized by the Mining Officer, Chitrakoot. When the revisionist moved an application for release of the tractor before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the learned C.J.M. called for a report from the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot. After receiving such report, it was found that no complaint has been filed in this matter. Moreover the compounding fee has also not been deposited by the applicant, so learned C.J.M. rejected the release application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The learned A.G.A. has contended that the release application has rightly been rejected by the impugned order. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order. The revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

5. After hearing learned counsel for both sides and keeping in view the relevant legal provisions I am of the considered