ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed against the order, dated

26.04.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.102 of 2024 in Crime No.5 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siricilla, wherein the petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C to release the said vehicle i.e., Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.TS 02 UC 2541 and TS 02 UC 2542 involved in the commission of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regularization Act, 1957. The above petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C was dismissed on the ground that the accused used the vehicle in committing the same offence in several criminal cases.

2. Heard Sri Kalyan Rao Changalva, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s vehicle has been seized and lying in the premises of concerned Police Station since 03.01.2024, which is exposed to natural calamities and if the same is kept idle, there is every chance that the vehicle will get damaged as a result of which the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. Due to the seizure of his vehicle, the petitioner is subjected to mental trauma. The petitioner is an innocent and law abiding citizen. If the said vehicle is not released, the petitioner will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 19.02.2015, the vehicle involved for illegal transport of sand without prior permission from the concerned authorities shall be released on payment of penalty for the vehicle and the vehicle involved in the same offence in several crime cases, such vehicle/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 said vehicle till decision of the confiscation is taken by the Court or by authorities concerned as per the said G.O. Therefore, the said 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.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that if the said vehicle is released, the petitioner will again involve in the same offence and further the said 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.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on record, the said 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 over come the adverse consequences resulting in delay for disposal of the criminal prosecutions involving confiscation. The confiscation of the said vehicle is 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 Apex Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer v. G.V.Sudhakar Rao1. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows:-

“Criminal prosecution is distinct from confiscation proceedings. The two proceedings are different and parallel, each having a distinct purpose. The object of confiscation proceedi