Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 12263

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Farjand Ali, J
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
Kesar Singh S/o Basant Singh – Respondent
Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2130/2021 | Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2127/2021 | Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2128/2021 | Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2129/2021 | Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2131/2021 | Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2132/2021 | Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2133/2021 | Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2134/2021 | Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2135/2021 | Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2136/2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG, Mr. S.D. Chawariya, Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi AAG, Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi, Mr. Devendra Prajapat, Mr. Mahaveer Pareek, Mr. Lalit Pareek, Mr Harshvardhan
For the Respondent(s): -

The court emphasized the discretion under criminal procedure to release seized vehicles, affirming that pending legal proceedings do not necessitate continued detention.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 451 to 457 - Proceedings involving seized vehicles under Mining Laws - The Court discussed the discretionary power to grant interim custody of seized vehicles to registered owners and established that the mere pendency of proceedings does not justify continued detention of vehicles, emphasizing the doctrine of expeditious justice and the necessity of addressing procedural deficiencies. (Paras 2.1 to 2.2)

(B) Review of Orders - The Court assessed previous dismissal of applications for vehicle release and found no substantial deficiencies to warrant interference, affirming that the lower court's decisions did not display any perversity or abuse of legal processes. (Paras 3.1 to 3.2)

Facts of the case:
The State challenged multiple orders allowing the release of vehicles seized for alleged violations of Mining Laws, initiating a review of the legal and procedural aspects concerning vehicle custody.

Findings of Court:
The Court noted the absence of legal grounds to question the lower court’s decisions concerning vehicle release, confirming the merits of the initial rulings.

Issues: The key issue was the legitimacy of releasing seized vehicles amidst ongoing legal proceedings without undermining law enforcement principles.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that legal and practical considerations favor the release of vehicles to registered owners despite pending proceedings, highlighting judicial discretion based on the circumstances of each case.

Result: Misc. Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. legal basis for vehicle seizure and application for release. (Para 1 , 2)
2. discretionary power of courts and procedural deficiencies noted. (Para 3)

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 28/03/2025 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 17/06/2025 BY THE COURT:-

1. These batch of Misc. Petitions have been filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the orders dated 15.07.2020, 04.09.2020, 29.07.2020, 14.08.2020, 05.09.2020 & 09.09.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal/ Criminal Revision Nos. 22/2020, 27/2020, 41/2020, 28/2020, 36/2020, 37/2020, 42/2020, 39/2020, 26/2020 & 41/2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara/Sessions Judge Rajsamand, whereby he allowed the revision petitions moved on behalf of the vehicle owners, directing release of the seized vehicles in their favour.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the impugned orders as well as the material on record. The matter, though limited in scope, involves certain legal niceties.

2.1. The vehicles belonging to the respondents-accused were seized by the concerned police station on allegations of violating penal provisions under the Mining Laws. It is well settled that an application seeking release of a seized vehicle may be filed either by the registered owner or by a person best entitled to possess the vehicle. The legal position in this regard is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638.

2.1. It is pertinent to note that such property, though movable in nature, is still a national asset, and cannot be left to deteriorate in the open parking areas of police stations for an indefinite period. Proceedings under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act can be duly undertaken in accordance with the procedure established by law and rules framed thereunder.

2.2. The grant of interim custody of a vehicle to its registered owner is a discretionary power vested in the criminal Courts under Sections 451 to 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code . If any dues or penalties are leviable against the respondents, the State authorities are not precluded from initiating appropriate steps for their recovery. Merely because proceedings are pending does not necessitate continued detention of the vehicle in every case.

3. Upon careful consideration of the impugned orders of the learned Magistrate, who had earlier dismissed the applications for release, it is evident that several procedural and substantive deficiencies in the prosecution case were rightly noted done by it. These findings, supported by cogent reasons, cannot be overlooked.

3.1. The orders passed by the Court of Revision granting release of vehicles does not disclose any perversity or manifest abuse of the process of law that would warrant interference of this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.

3.2. Thus, I am, therefore, of the considered view that the Misc.

Petitions lack merit and deserve outright dismissal.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document