The Judicial Magistrate/Criminal Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue of release of seized vehicles under Section 451 CrPC and should afford an opportunity to the claimant-petitioner to establish innocence and non-involvement in the offence/crime.

JUDGMENT :

1. This order shall dispose of Crl.Ref.No.1 of 2019 and Crl.Revn.Petn.Nos.17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 27 of 2019 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the legal issues involved therein are identical. However, facts are being extracted from Crl.Rev.P.No.17 of 2019.

2. In Crl.Rev.Petn.No.17 of 2019, the petitioner has filed the petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short CrPC) impugning the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh, Meghalaya in Zimma Application No.91 of 2019 arising out of Nongpoh P.S. Case No.40(2) 2019, under Sections 188/420/120 B/109 IPC.

3. Briefly, the relevant facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is the owner of the heavy goods vehicle bearing registration No.ML-04 C 5666 which is a public transport. On 06.02.2019, on the basis of some source information, the police detained the said vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.ML-04 C 5666 on the highway proceeding from Umde-Ronghona at Ronghona which was loaded with coal. FIR Nongpoh P.S. Case No.40(2) 2019, under Sections 188/420/120 B/109 IPC had been registered and the vehicle was seized in connection with this case. The police claimed that the vehicle was loaded with coal without any valid documents and it was transporting the coal illegally. Further, the driver of the truck, namely, Shri Thapskhem Dkhar had avoided the integrated check post of the Transport Department at Shangbangla with the intention to evade payment of royalty and tax.

4. The petitioner moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh praying for Zimma of the said vehicle. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh vide impugned order dated 13.02.2019 rejected the said application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had erred in declining to release the vehicle bearing registration ML-04 C 5666 on Zimma. According to the learned counsel, FIR was registered on 06.02.2019, therefore, release of vehicle would be governed by Section 451 CrPC. Support was drawn from the pronouncement of the Apex Court in AIR 2003 SC 638: Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v State Of Gujarat.

6. It was next submitted that the vehicles are subject to speedy and natural decay as non-operation of the vehicle would lead to deterioration of not only its condition but shall also affect the user. The emphasis of the learned counsel was on compliance of Section 451 CrPC to urge that retention of the vehicle besides creating additional burden on the local police to keep the seized article in proper useable condition, would result in undue financial loss to the owner of the vehicle who had no role in the commission of the crime.

7. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was assailed by contending that the genesis of the impugned order has been the order passed by the National Green Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) dated 04.01.2019, whereby, the Tribunal had made a recommendation to the Committee to consider that any cranes and trucks found involved in illegal mining or transportation shall also be seized and the same be released by the concerned District Magistrates only after recovering damages to the extent of 50% of the showroom price of the vehicle or equipment. It was submitted that the advice given by the Tribunal for the consideration of the Committee and the report of the Committee dated 11.01.2019 in its seventh meeting adopting the suggestions could not have been construed adverse by the trial Magistrate. The petitioner ought to have been provided with an opportunity to prima facie establish his claim that the transporter had no role in the commission of the crime and that he was not associated with the owner of the coal in any manner. It was asserted that in such circumstances the condition contained in the order of the Tribunal dated 04