1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

W.P.(Cr.) No. 144 of 2022

----

Asha Devi, aged about 36 years, wife of late Dashrath Mahto, resident of

Ara Basti, baglata Near Hanuman Mandir, PO and PS Mandu, District

Ramgarh

….. Petitioner

-- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand

…... Opposite Party

----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate

For the State :- Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate

----

3/06.06.2022

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated

14.12.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in

Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.6782/2020 which has been filed for

release of Tata 709 vehicle bearing registration no.JH02M7671 which has

been seized in connection with Ormanjhi PS Case No.2009/19

corresponding to G.R. No.2332/21 which has been lodged for the offence

punishable under sections 379/34 of the IPC, section 54 and 4 of

Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules and Sections 8,9 of Jharkhand

Mineral Dealers Rules, 2007 whereby the application of the petitioner has

been dismissed as not maintainable which is pending in the court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

The First Information Report was registered

alleging therein that on written report given by one Shiv

Shankar Pandal, Circle Officer, alleging therein that he was on

his duty. On 1.12.2019 he reached near Kherabera Booth

No.66 then he saw two Turbo 709 vehicle are coming

towards him and when he tried to stop them the driver of

the vehicle left the vehicle and had fled away and from the

vehicle of this petition, it has been alleged that 140 Cft.

Stone chips was loaded and they have failed to produce any

document. He has further stated that from the local villagers

he has come to know that lots of illegal crusher is being

running in the said area and accordingly after preparation of

seizure list the present first information report has been

instituted.

Mr. Avishek Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the stone

chips in question which was being transported in the vehicle of this

petitioner. He submits that, however, a petition for release of the vehicle

was filed by the respective owner. He submits that this vehicle is

commercial in nature and the trial has not been concluded as yet. He

further submits that there is provision of confiscation of the seized article

in terms of section 21(4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and

2

Regulation) Act, 1957. He further submits that confiscation is required to

be done once the trial is concluded and the petitioner is found to be

guilty in the trial. He further submits that in view of amendment in Rule

54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 which was

incorporated in Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining,

Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. By virtue Rule 54(5) of the

Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner is

required to pay the double amount of the minerals and the goods in

question can be released.

Mr. Devesh Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent State submits that in light of Rule 54(5) of

Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner is the

owner of the vehicle. He further submits that for release of the vehicle,

the petitioner is required to follow the procedure as an interim measure.

Since the petitioner is not claiming the stone chips as he

has submitted that he is not the owner and only the transporter, there is

no need to deposit the double amount if the stone chips in question is

not being claimed by the petitioner. For the sake of convenience,