[2026:RJ-JD:295]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7724/2025 Dinesh Punia S/o Shri Heera Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Puniyo Ka Bas Rajpuriya Khara Bera Purohitan, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. The Mining Department, Nagour ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Niwas Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

06/01/2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present matter without filing any complaint under the MMCR Rules 2017, the vehicle has been confiscated on the basis of the FIR. It is alleged that the proceedings under the Mining Laws can be initiated upon filing of a complaint, at the instance of the Authorized Officer and cognizance of the offence can taken based upon the averments made in the complainant. It is further stated that Rule 56 proceeds with the non obstante clause to the effect that no Court shall take cognizance under the MMDA or Rules made thereunder except upon a complaint moved on behalf of the authorized officer. If any proceedings is undertaken by the Mining Department, the process shall be followed in accordance with the provision and rules made thereunder. A criminal Court is not supposed to keep detained a vehicle seized by the police for an offence of theft of mineral. After effecting seizure by the Police under the force of BNSS, the provison under Section 503 of Cr.P.C. attracts automatically and the law relating to disposal of the property would govern the field. He, therefore, states that the confiscation done by the Police Authorities on the basis of the FIR is not justified and is illegal.

Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Prasad & Ors. passed in Criminal Appeal No.106-107/2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court (Jaipur Bench) in case of Girraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.419/2025 and in another case of Mohit Gora Vs. State of Rajathan & Anr. passed in S.B. Criminal Misc.

Petition No.7195/2025 In view of the judgments cited, the issue involved in the case is no more res-integra and the controversy is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Judgments.

In view of the same the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed in following terms, which reads as under:-

“6. The Mining Department may initiate the proceeding independently and it would be free and at liberty to take all legal actions if fine penalty etc are ascertained and whereafter needful can be done in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. As on date, the vehicle has not been confiscated, thus, a criminal court is not supposed to keep a vehicle detained until the confiscation proceeding is commenced and concluded by the Mining Department in the manner of an agent of the Department of Mining. If any order is passed by the Mining Department or even if confiscation order is made, the vehicle can be taken back by the Department but not by the Police. As on date, there are no reasonable grounds to keep detained the vehicle for an indefinite period or for the purpose of completion of procedural formalities. Keeping detained a vehicle for an indefinite period certainly put decay and deterioration to the property which would be a loss to the asset of the Nation.

7. In view of the above, the instant misc. Petition is allowed and this Court deems it just and appropriate to release the vehicle on furnishing a Supurdaginama of an amount equivalent to the current value of impounded vehicle. Current value shall be as per the satisfaction of the learned competent Court dealing with the fresh application, if and when filed. Other conditions shall also be imposed by the learned court below as per judgment, ibid.

8. Before releasing the vehicle, the trial court shall verify that the petitio