IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 7071 of 2022
Decided On : 23-02-2024
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Validity of Order - Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 - Rule 72
Fact of the Case:
The applicant's JCB excavation machinery was seized for alleged unauthorized digging of a pond. The trial court rejected the release application citing lack of power under Rule 72(6) of the Rules 2021.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the provisions of Rule 72 of the Rules, 2021, imposing restrictions on transportation of minerals, were not applicable to the applicant's excavation machinery. The Act, 1957, and Section 21(4-A) vested power of dealing with confiscated tools, equipment, or vehicles in the Court.
Issues: Validity of the trial court's rejection of the release application and the jurisdiction of the Court to dispose of the seized vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the release application and directed the Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order for the release of the vehicle within 30 days.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed, and the Judicial Magistrate was directed to pass a fresh order for the release of the vehicle.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri Alok Kr. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Ms Charu Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has assailed validity of the order dated 20.07.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Gonda whereby an application for release of a vehicle has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that as per the provisions contained in Section 72(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Rules 2021’) the District Magistrate is authorized to pass an order for release of vehicle.
The applicant had filed Criminal revision No. 273 of 2022 challenging the aforesaid order dated 20.07.2022 and the revision has been dismissed by means of the judgment and order dated 19.06.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda and the applicant has challenged the validity of that order also.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the applicant owns a JCB brand excavation machinery, which was seized on 06.07.2022 on the allegation that it was found engaged in digging a pond without any permit.
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant’s excavation machine was hired by one Awadhest Kumar for digging of a pond in furtherance of permission granted to him by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Colonelganj, Gonda, a copy whereof has been annexed with the application.
5. The trial court has rejected the application on the ground that he has no power to release the vehicle under Section 72(6) of the Rules, 2021.
6. Rule 72 aforesaid provides as follows:
(1) The holder of a mining lease or permit or a person authorised by him in this behalf shall issue a pass in Form MM-1 I or Form e-MM-11 prepared through electronic process to every person carrying, a consignment of minor mineral by a vehicle, animal or any other mode of transpo11, the State Government may, through the District Officer, make arrangements for the supply of printed MM-1 1 Form books on payment basis.
(2) No person shall carry, within the State a minor mineral by a vehicle, animal or any other mode of transport, without caning a pass in Form MM-11/ Form e-MM-11 issued under sub rule (I), valid transit pass issued under rule 7(3) of Uttar Pradesh Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and storage) Rules, 2018 or similar valid transit pass issued by any other State:
Provided that if the State Government enters into an agreement to collect the Royalty through contractor, receipt of royalty or zero receipt as the case may be shall be issued by such contractor and in such cases carrying out such receipt with Form MM-11/ form e-MM-11 will be mandatory for transportation.
Provided further that the transportation of the mineral will be valid only after the State Government has determined the regulation fees imposed from time to time on the mineral coming from other State.
(3) Every person carrying any minor mineral shall, on demand by any officer authorised under Rule 67 or such officer as may be authorised by the State Government in this behalf, show the said pass to such officer and allow him verify the correctness of the particulars of the pass with references to the quantity of the Minor Mineral.
(4) The State Government may establish a check post for any area included in any mining lease or permit and when a check post is so established public notice shall be given to this fact by publication in the Gazette and in such other manner as may be considered suitable by the State Government.
(5) No person shall transport a minor mineral for which these rules apply from such area without first presenting the mineral at the check post established for that area for verification of the weight or measurement of the mineral.
(6) Any person found to have contravened
AI
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.
The jurisdiction of a criminal court to release a seized vehicle is not barred by pending confiscation proceedings under mining regulations.
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 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.
Point of law: The person, in whose custody the vehicle is, shall get the value of the vehicle assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector concerned in the presence of the owner of the vehicle/appellant/p....
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.