2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 3938
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. SUJANA, J
Nimma Krishna – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP/8643/2024
Confiscation proceedings under the Mines and Minerals Act must be initiated before a vehicle involved in illegal mining can be released under Section 451 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 451 and 457 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 21(4A) - Criminal petition to release vehicles seized for illegal mining - Trial Court dismissed the petition based on prior offences involving the petitioner - The petitioner argued for release citing potential damage to vehicles and willingness to comply with conditions - Court found that confiscation proceedings must be initiated for illegal mining, thus allowing the petition under certain conditions. (Paras 2-10)
(B) Confiscation proceedings - Distinction between criminal prosecution and confiscation - Both proceedings serve distinct purposes; criminal prosecution aims to punish, while confiscation seeks to prevent further illegal activities - The court emphasized the importance of initiating confiscation proceedings before interim custody can be granted. (Paras 7-8)
(C) Legal requirement for vehicle release - The court highlighted that vehicles involved in illegal activities can only be released if confiscation proceedings are not initiated. (Paras 8-9)
ORDER
- This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 read with
- Section 451 and 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to set aside the docket order dated 22.07.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.233 of 2023 in C.C.No.220 of 2023 by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First
- Class, Vemulawada.
- 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court, vide Crl.M.P.No.233 of 2023 under Section 451 of Cr.P.C to release the subject vehicles i.e., Tractor bearing No.TS 02 UA 5597 and trailor bearing No.AP 15 TB 9596 involved in the commission of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regularization Act, 1957. The trial Court after hearing on both sides, dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioner used the vehicle in committing the same offence in several criminal cases.
- 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition stating that the subject vehicles of the petitioner has been seized and lying in the premises of concerned Police Station since 24.03.2023, which is exposed to natural calamities and if the same is kept idle, there is every chance that the vehicles will get damaged as a result of which the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. The petitioner is an innocent and law abiding citizen. If the subject vehicles is not released, the petitioner will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss.
- 4. Heard Sri Madas Bharath Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 19.02.2015, the vehicles involved for illegal transport of sand without prior permission from the concerned authorities shall be released on payment of penalty for the vehicles and the vehicles involved in the same offence in several crime cases, such vehicles/machinery along with sand shall be seized/confiscated by the concerned officer in the State. The said G.O is attached in the material papers. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order and to release the subject vehicle till decision of the confiscation is taken by the Court or by authorities concerned as per the said G.O.
- Therefore, the subject vehicle may be returned to the petitioner, who is ready to give an undertaking and also a personal bond, and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition.
- 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that if the subject vehicle is released, the petitioner will again involve in the same offence and further the subject vehicle is involved in the same offence in several crime cases. Due to the illegalities committed by the petitioner, the entire environment is very much affected. Under Section 21(4A) in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act, 1957’), the specifically authorized competent Court to complete the confiscation proceedings. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
7. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, the subject vehicle is involved in mining and transporting the sand illegally. Registering the Criminal Case will make little impact. The alternative scheme of confiscation proceedings has been provided to overcome the adverse consequences resulting in delay for disposal of the criminal prosecutions involving confiscation. The confiscation of the subject vehicle are one of the effective tool for protecting the illegal mining and preserving the environment and under Section 21 (4A) of the Act, 1957, the Court taking cognizance of the offence can confiscate. The Criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings are parallel proceedings and having distinct purpose and object. The same was dealt with by the Hon’ble A