The court upheld the authority of police to seize vehicles under the IPC and emphasized that confiscation proceedings under the MMRD Act must proceed independently, rejecting the petition for vehicle release.

ORAL ORDER

RULE returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, present petition are taken up for final hearing today.

[1.0] By way of present petition under Articles 14, 19, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the petitioner – transporter is seeking quashing of order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in muddamal application being Criminal Misc. Application No.692 of 2023 filed under Section 451 of the CrPC and further to release the muddamal vehicle.

[2.0] That, an FIR being CR No.11211045230331 of 2023 came to be registered with Sayla Police Station, District Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “ IPC ”); Section 21 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (for short “Rules, 2017”) and Sections 4(1), 4(1)A, 21(1) and 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short “MMRD Act”) and muddamal vehicle was seized.

[2.1] After the investigation, charge-sheet is filed against some accused and during the investigation, muddamal vehicle came to be seized and kept in police custody. The petitioner – transporter filed application under Section 451 of the CrPC before the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, which came to be rejected vide order dated 29.12.2023.

Hence, present petition is filed.

[3.0] Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

[4.0] Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Learned Judge failed to consider the settled proposition of law and dismissed the muddamal application. Further, as the petitioner has not gained any monetary benefit from the alleged illegal activity, seizure of muddamal vehicle on the part of the authority itself is without jurisdiction and muddamal vehicle is wrongfully detained by the police and since inception it appears that the custody of the muddamal vehicle was illegal and unjust. Further, he has submitted that under Section 22 of the MMRD Act and the Rules thereunder, the FIR itself is not maintainable as the FIR is not filed by a person authorized on behalf of the State Government and as the same is not filed before the competent Court. He has submitted that in this regard, quashing petition being Criminal Misc. Application No.888/2024 is also filed and vide order dated 16.01.2024, the proceedings qua offence under Sections 4(1), 4(1)A, 21(1) and 21(5) of the MMRD Act and Rules 3 and 21 of the Rules, 2017 has been stayed. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2003 (1) GLH 307 and the oral order of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the Special Criminal Application No.7174/2023 and has requested to allow the present petition.

[5.0] Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present petition and submitted that the petitioner is involved in illegal activity and under one or the other pretext continued with such illegal activities under the MMRD Act and in this regard, without any pass, permit or license, since last 5 years, petitioner has been indulging in illegal transportation of black trap and 62,20,390.15 MT of black trap is illegally excavated and during the raid, theft of minerals worth Rs.2,46,88,72,850.25