Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.
Chandan Kumar Akela, Son of Tarkeshwar Ray - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar Patna, Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.846 of 2024
Decided On : 29-01-2026
Bihar Mineral (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 – Rules 56 and 60 – Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 4 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 379 and 411 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Release of seized Truck – Vehicle was seized due to overloading and driver was apprehended – If officer concerned arrives at a decision that weighing or measurement of minerals is not possible on weighbridge, he may adopt other methods and seizure could not be stated to be bad only on the ground that option of weighing on weighbridge was not exercised and same is against mandatory nature of Rule 60 (2) – In present case, mineral is sand and allegation is overloading of vehicle exceeding challan weight – Respondent authorities took a volumetric measurement of loaded sand on vehicle of petitioner and found it to be more than weight taken on weighbridge – Petitioner has alternative remedy available in form of Rule 67 of 2019 Rules to challenge measurement and other aspects in appeal – Considering express language used by Legislature, Court cannot read the word 'shall' in place of 'may' in Rule 60 (2) – If driver was not served with copy of seizure memo, this lapse would not vitiate whole prosecution – Claim of non-adherence to other procedural safeguard ipso facto would not have rendered FIR liable to be quashed – However, almost two years have elapsed and vehicle of petitioner has been losing its road-worthiness – Authorities could be directed to release vehicle subject to payment of penalty amount in easy instalments – Respondent directed to release Truck of petitioner on payment of penalty amount in six monthly instalments. (Paras 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 27)
Interpretation of Statute – In general parlance, word 'may' does not mean 'must' or 'shall' – But there has been occasions when word 'may' has been treated as 'shall' – Construction of word 'may' as 'shall' is permissible in cases where extant of power is overriding and discretion cannot be left in hands of a person who has to give effect to such statute – It all depends on nature of power and effect of exercise of power conferred by statute – Foremost rule of interpretation is Literal Rule of Interpretation requiring courts to apply exact, ordinary, grammatical meanings of words in a statute – Words are given their natural and popular meaning – This rule of interpretation is applied when statutory language is unambiguous and clear – This rule can be given a go-bye only if such interpretation would lead to absurd result. (Para 18)
Case Referred:
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 – Relied.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks release of seized vehicle and quash fir. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding vehicle seizure. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. analysis of procedural compliance under rule 60 of 2019 rules. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. court's decision on maintaining fir and vehicle seizure. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. orders for release of vehicle on penalty payment. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking following reliefs :
“(i) To issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to release the Vehicle i.e. a Diesel TATA Truck bearing registration number as BR04GA8399, Chasis No.- MAT466416B2N25750 in favor of petitioner, which was seized by Respondent no.-4.
(ii) To issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ(s), order(s), direction(s) to the concerned respondent to cancel/quash the F.I.R. lodged as Awatarnagar P.S. Case No.-42/2024 dated 22.02.2024 under Section 379 , 411 of The Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of MMDR Act and Section 56 of Bihar Illegal Minerals Mining Act.
(iii) Any other relief(s) for which the petitioner is found entitled to”.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is stated to be the owner of a Diesel TATA Truck bearing Registration No. BR-04GA-8399, Chassis No. MAT466416B2N25750. The petitioner is engaged in transportation business. The petitioner claims that he possessed a prepaid pass/challan issued by the Government of Bihar, explicitly authorizing the transportation of yellow sand
3. Further case of the petitioner is that while the driver of the petitioner had been lawfully carrying out his duty of transporting yellow sand well within permitted limit, police officials stopped him around 7.00 P.M. on 22.02.2024 and proceeded to seize the vehicle. Subsequently, Awatarnagar P.S. Case No. 42/2024 dated 22.02.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 379 , 411 of the Indian Penal Code , Section 4 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'MMDR Act') and Section 56 of Bihar Mineral (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to '2019 Rules'), has been lodged against the vehicle and its driver.
4. From the FIR, it appears the vehicle was seized due to overloading and the driver was apprehended. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of Awatarnagar P.S. Case No. 42/2024 and for release of his vehicle in question.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 4 has arbitrarily seized the vehicle of the petitioner, who is bonafide owner of the vehicle in question and is engaged in business of transportation. For carrying sand on the said vehicle, the petitioner has got a valid challan and the driver was carrying the same. The validity period commenced at mentioned in the FIR is made out against the petitioner or his driver. The whole case of the prosecution is based on the presumption that the vehicle of the petitioner was overloaded and had been carrying sand exceeding the limit permitted in the challan issued for the transportation. Even the seizure memo was prepared without following the due procedure and without weighing the sand. No independent witness was joined during the seizure, which is a procedural requirement mandated by law. The authority further failed to provide the copy of the seizure memo to the co-accused driver of the vehicle and, therefore, it casts serious doubt on the credibility and authenticity of the seizure memo.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that there is complete non-compliance of Rule 60 (2) of the 2019 Rules. No doubt Rule 60 (1) provides that any of the Officers mentioned in Rule 59 may stop any carrier, vehicle
Discretion in enforcement procedures allows alternative methods of measurement under exigent circumstances, affirming the legality of seizure and penalty despite procedural lapses.
The detention of seized vehicles must adhere to procedural due process; prolonged retention without recourse violates rights to property and livelihood, justifying release.
Vehicles seized in criminal investigations may be released if the owners are not implicated in the crime, provided they execute a bond ensuring proper care and appearance when required.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
