ORDER :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The challenge is given to the order dated 11.03.2026 passed in Cr.MA No.1056 of 2026 by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, whereby the prayer releasing the Muddamal vehicle being ASHOK LEYLAND DUMPER bearing registration no. GJ-08-AW-9752, Chassis no. MB1JJDHD9PPMV2572 and Engine No. PMPZ104765, came to be rejected, ordering confiscation.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Jay R Shah submitted that the order of the 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur is prima-facie bad in law. The learned Judge was required to deal with the application as per the provision of Section 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.PC’), which are analogous provisions to Section 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the ‘BNSS Act’).

3. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2021 (19) SCC 62, advocate Mr. Shah submitted that here in the present matter, the registration of the FIR was invoking Sections 221 and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the ‘BNS Act’) and submitted that the filing of the charge-sheet by the police under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, ‘MMDR Act’) would be bad in law since no private complaint has been filed by the geologist for the invocation of the Sections of MMDR Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.

3.1 It is submitted by advocate Mr. Shah that the FIR No.11195051250354 dated 15.05.2025 before the Thara Police Station, Banaskantha has made a reference of Section 221 which refers to obstructing the public servant in discharge of public function and Section 281 for rash driving or riding on a public way and the charge-sheet ought to have been filed only in connection with these both invoked sections.

3.2 Advocate Mr. Shah stated that thus, the order of the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur allowing the application Exh.6 by the geological department for confiscation of the vehicle would be bad in law in absence of private complaint by the geological department under MMDR Act.

3.3 Advocate Mr. Shah has also referred to the provisions of Section 33 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (PoA Act) and Section 30C of the MMDR Act, 1957, to deal with the initial jurisdiction of taking cognizance and committal of the cases.

3.4 While interpreting the observations in Pradeep S. Wodeyar (supra), advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the Special Court has no authority to take direct cognizance of the matter and therefore, stated that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge allowing the confiscation of the Muddamal vehicle is contrary to the provision of law. Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that it is only the Judicial Magistrate First Class before whom the FIR had been filed would have the jurisdiction to deal with the Muddamal vehicle and has to pass the order as per Section 497 of the BNSS Act.

4. Countering the arguments, learned APP Ms. Asmita Patel stated that the FIR was filed by the officer of the geology department. It was during the course of the search when the complainant found that there was an illegal transport of the sand and when the officer was trying to restrain the vehicle, the applicant had tried to run away with the Muddamal vehicle, hence, the FIR came to be filed and during the course when the offences under the MMDR Act were found and therefore, those sections were invoked in the charge-sheet.

5. The operative part of the order of the learned Judge is as under:

ORDER

1. Present Muddamal application filed by the applicant u/s.497 of BNSS, 2023 is hereby rejected.

2. The application for confiscation filed at Exh.6 by the Department is hereby allowed.

3. The Geological Department, Banaskantha is hereby pe