Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 1571
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Gopu Thirupathi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP/1068/2025
The court ruled that a petition for interim custody under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is maintainable in the absence of initiated confiscation proceedings under the Mines and Minerals Act.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 21(4) and 21(4A) - Petition for release of vehicle involved in illegal mining - Dismissed by lower court due to repeated offences - Court emphasized the need for confiscation proceedings and the distinction between criminal prosecution and confiscation - The vehicle was ordered to be released under specific conditions after the court found that confiscation proceedings had not been initiated. (Paras 1, 6, 8, 9)
(B) Confiscation Proceedings - Distinction from Criminal Prosecution - The court noted that confiscation proceedings serve a distinct purpose from criminal prosecution, aimed at deterring illegal activities and protecting the environment. (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s vehicle was seized for illegal transportation of sand and had been lying idle since January 2024, risking damage and causing hardship to the petitioner. (Paras 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the vehicle had not been subjected to confiscation proceedings, thus allowing the petition for interim custody under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. (Paras 8)
Issues: The main issues were whether the vehicle could be released pending confiscation proceedings and the implications of repeated offences. (Paras 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of confiscation proceedings made the petition for interim custody maintainable, emphasizing the need for separate proceedings for confiscation and prosecution. (Paras 8)
Result: Criminal petition allowed with conditions.
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed against the order dated 14.08.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.523 of 2024 in C.C.No.284 of 2024 in Crime No.91 of 2024 of Vemulawada Town Police Station, wherein the petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. to release the property i.e. Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.TS02A 4106 and 4107 involved in the commission of offence under Section 379 of IPC 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 more than five times.
2. Heard Mr.Ram Prasad Teegala, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and perused the record.
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 17.01.2024, 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 more than 2 times, 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 requested the Court to set aside the order and to release the vehicle till decision of the confiscation is taken by the Court or by authorities concerned as per the said G.O. Therefore, the 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 Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that if the vehicle is released, the petitioner will again involve in the same offence and further the vehicle is involved in the same offence for five times. 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 has 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 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 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 Rao, [(1985) 4 SCC 573]. 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 proceeding is to enable speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of
