The jurisdiction for interim custody of vehicles seized under the MMDR Act is ambiguous, necessitating clarification from a Larger Bench on whether such authority lies with the Magistrate or the Special Court.

COMMON ORDER

Assailing the orders in and by which the respective petitions filed for release of the vehicles, which were alleged to have been involved in the offence of illegal transportation of minerals and which stood seized by the authorised officers, the present revision petitions have been filed seeking to set aside the said orders and direct interim custody of the vehicles pending trial.

2. The vehicles of various descriptions, which are the subject matter in the respective revision petitions, were seized by the authorised officers u/s 21 (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the MMDR Act’) along with the minerals, which were alleged to have been transported in the said vehicles. Pending finalisation of confiscation proceedings/initiation of confiscation proceedings, the respective petitioners filed petition u/s 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’) seeking interim custody/release of the vehicle, which had come to be dismissed by the court below leading to the filing of the present petitions for the aforestated relief.

3. The vehicles involved in the alleged offences have been seized u/s 21 (4) of the MMDR Act and proceedings for confiscation are liable to be taken up in the said cases. In some of the cases, confiscation proceedings are yet to be initiated by the authorised officer, while in some cases confiscation proceedings have been initiated. In the aftermath of the above, as the vehicles are prone to the vagaries of the atmosphere, being kept in open to sky and suffering deterioration and losing its value, the petitions seeking custody/release of the vehicles were filed, which were dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that either confiscation proceedings have been taken up or that the apprehensions cast by the prosecution cannot be brushed aside and that prosecution therein has taken steps to initiate confiscation proceedings and, therefore, the plea for custody/release of the vehicles were rejected.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in unison, placed reliance on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Annadurai – Vs – The Inspector of Police (Crl. O.P. Nos.646/2024, etc. – Dated 29.01.2024) and urged this Court that the court competent to release/grant interim custody of the vehicles is the Magistrate Court and irrespective of the fact that confiscation proceedings have been initiated or are pending initiation of confiscation proceedings, the Magistrate Court, which is the court competent to take cognizance of the petition, is bound to release the vehicles and mere apprehension cannot be the basis to reject the plea of the petitioners.

5. However, contending to the contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution in all the revision petitions submitted that another learned single Judge of this Court in Krishnamoorthy – Vs – The State (Crl. R.C. Nos.755/2021, etc. Batch – Dated – 23.03.2022) has held that the court competent to deal with the release of the vehicles, pending confiscation proceedings/pending initiation of confiscation proceedings is the Special Court and, therefore, rightly, the Magistrate has refused to grant interim custody/release the vehicle, which does not require interference.

6. In fact, learned Public Prosecutor also placed reliance upon the decision of a learned single Judge of the Madurai Bench of this Court in Ramar & Ors. – Vs – The State (Crl. R.C. (MD) Nos.894/2023, et