IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that confiscation and criminal proceedings are distinct, allowing interim custody of a seized vehicle if confiscation proceedings are not initiated.

ORDER:

K. Sujana, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed against the order, dated 22.08.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.207 of 2024 in Crime No.148 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Husnabad (for short, ‘trial Court’), seeking to release the said vehicle i.e., Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.TS-36-T-9314 and TS-36-T-9315 involved in the commission of offence in Cr.No.148 of 2024 of Koheda Police Station, Siddipet District, punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (for short, PDPP’) Act, 2023. The above petition is filed under Section 497 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) was dismissed on the ground that the accused used the subject vehicle in committing the same offence in several criminal cases.

2. Heard Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s vehicle has been seized and lying in the custody of the learned trial Court, which is exposed to natural calamities and if the same is kept idle, there is every chance that the vehicle will get damaged as a result of which the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. Due to the seizure of his vehicle, the petitioner is subjected to mental trauma. The petitioner is an innocent and law abiding citizen. If the said vehicle is not released, the petitioner will be put to severe hardship and irreparable loss.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 19.02.2015, the vehicle involved for illegal transport of sand without prior permission from the concerned authorities shall be released on payment of penalty for the vehicle and the vehicle involved in the same offence in several crime cases, such vehicle/machinery along with sand shall be seized/confiscated by the concerned officer in the State. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order and to release the said vehicle till decision of the confiscation is taken by the Court or by authorities concerned as per the said G.O. Therefore, the said vehicle may be returned to the petitioner, who is ready to give an undertaking and also a personal bond, and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that if the said vehicle is released, the petitioner will again involve in the same offence and further the said vehicle is involved in the same offence in similar cases. Due to the illegalities committed by the petitioner, the entire environment is very much affected. Under Section 21(4A) in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act, 1957’), the specifically authorized competent Court to complete the confiscation proceedings. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on record, the said vehicle is involved in mining and transporting the sand illegally. Registering the Criminal Case will make little impact. The alternative scheme of confiscation proceedings has been provided to overcome the adverse consequences resulting in delay for disposal of the criminal prosecutions involving confiscation. The confiscation of the said vehicle is one of the effective tool for protecting the illegal mining and preserving the environment and under Section 21 (4A) of the Act, 1957, the Court taking cognizance of the offence can confiscate. The Criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings are parallel proceedings and having distinct purpose and object. The same was dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer v. G.V.Sudhakar Rao (1985) 4 SCC 573. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows:-

“Criminal prosecution is distinct from confiscation p