ORDER

1. The present petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is filing under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 4.3.2015 passed by Special Judge Bhind in Criminal Revision No.107/2014, whereby the revisional Court has upheld the interlocutory order passed for granting interim custody of sand during pendency of the trial in question.

2. Indisputably, the petitioner was holder of license to store sand at the relevant point of time. Fact reveal that on 13.7.2013 the Mining Department of District Bhind on inspection found the storage of sand to be done on various survey numbers apart from the survey number in regard to which license for storage was granted. This lead to issuance of show cause notice dated 16.7.2013 Annexure P/4. The petitioner preferred a reply Annexure P/5 to the show cause notice denying the alleged violation of law.

2.1 The wrongly stored sand was seized and offence u/R. 18 of Madhya Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (for brevity “2006 Rules”) was registered. The petitioner did not choose to compound the offence. The Judicial Magistrate concerned was intimated by the authorized person. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an application on 13.3.2014 u/S. 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of 194516 cu.m. of sand. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 24.4.2014 allowed the application and directed release of 194516 cu.m. of sand out of total seized sand of 438646 cu.m. and directed confiscation of the remaining seized sand and to liquidate the same by conducting auction and depositing the sale proceeds with the trial Court. The State, aggrieved by the order of interim custody preferred a revision which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 4.3.2015 and thus the petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

3. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on final disposal.

3.1 Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State has drawn attention of this Court to the provisions of rule 18 of 2006 Rules to submit that in the given facts and circumstances and especially in the face of provisions of rule 18 (6) proviso of 2006 Rules the seized mineral cannot be released on interim or final custody to the defaulter as the provisions indicate that the seized mineral has to be invariably confiscated thereby becoming the property of the State, and is thus not available for interim custody.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand urged that the interpretation of the said Rule made by learned Additional Advocate General is fallacious. It is submitted that in a given case as herein where defaulter has not chosen to compound the offence in question, the seized mineral is always available to be handed over by way of interim custody by the orders of the Judicial Magistrate who is trying the offence and such interim custody would always remain subject to final verdict in the trial.

5. Shri Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General laying emphasis of clause (6) of rule 18 and its proviso submits that the mineral seized under sub-clause (2) is not open to grant of interim custody and is invariably liable to be confiscated. Thus, it is submitted that neither the authorised person nor the Judicial Magistrate trying the offence are vested with any power to grant of interim custody of the seized mineral.

6. To appreciate the rival contentions of the counsel for rival parties, it is apt to reproduced Rule 18 of 2006 Rules :

“18. Penalty for unauthorised Transportation or Storage of Minerals and its Products.- (1) Whenever any person is found transporting or storing any mineral or its products or on whose behalf such transportation or storage is being made otherwise than in accordance with these rules, shall be presumed to be a party to the illegal transportation or storage of mineral or its products and every such person shall be punishable