Order

1. The instant petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the tractor (trolley) in question, seeking release of the said vehicle, which has been seized by the police in connection with the investigation of FIR No.46/2025 registered at Police Station Thanwala, District Nagaur.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 05.03.2025, a police team from Police Station Thanwala received secret information regarding alleged illegal excavation of sand. Acting upon such information, the team proceeded to the spot and intercepted the petitioner’s vehicle, which was found stationed in an agricultural field. The Investigating Officer is stated to have informed the Mining Department as well. However, it is noteworthy that the proceedings pertaining to inspection, measurement, and assessment by the Mining Engineer were neither conducted in the presence of the petitioner nor was any prior intimation given to him in this regard. The petitioner, being the registered owner and the person best entitled to possession of the vehicle, moved an application under Section 503 of the BNSS before the competent Magistrate seeking interim release of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate allowed the application, albeit subject to the condition of depositing an amount of ₹6,17,500/- towards alleged illegal mining.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed a reply, the same primarily relies upon an assessment purportedly made by the Mining Officer in relation to a sandpit near village Medas.

4. A perusal of paragraph 2 of the reply reveals that reference has been made to seven vehicles allegedly involved in excavation of sand from a public place. However, the entire process of assessment raises serious doubts. It remains unclear as to what formed the basis of the measurement; whether the suspects were informed or associated during the assessment; who witnessed the alleged excavation; and whether such assessment was conducted at the site or within the office of the Mining Department. It is also not evident whether the police officials involved in the investigation were informed or present at the time of such assessment. These unanswered questions cast a serious shadow on the fairness and transparency of the assessment conducted by the Mining Engineer. Prima facie, there is sufficient material to infer that the assessment appears to have been carried out ex parte, behind the back of the petitioner. Consequently, it cannot be concluded with any degree of certainty that the pits allegedly noticed by the Mining Engineer in the agricultural field were caused at the instance of the petitioner. Furthermore, the statutory scheme under the mining laws clearly envisages that proceedings of this nature can be initiated only upon a complaint being filed by an authorized officer of the Mining Department, and cognizance can be taken by the Court only upon such complaint. Admittedly, no such complaint has been filed in the present case. In view of the non obstante clause contained in the relevant rules, which bars cognizance except upon a complaint by an authorized officer, the very basis of the assessment and the consequent demand raised against the petitioner becomes questionable.

5. This Court is of the considered view that if any proceedings are to be undertaken under the mining laws, the concerned department and its officers are expected to strictly adhere to the provisions and procedure prescribed therein. A criminal court is not expected to keep a vehicle seized by the police under the provisions of the BNSS in prolonged detention. It is no more res integra that a criminal court is duly empowered to release a seized vehicle on interim custody to its rightful owner. Section 503 of the BNSS is attracted the moment a seizure is effected by the police. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has authoritativ