HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

TJODHPUR.

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2603/2019

Manoj S/o Mokha Ram, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Bishnoi , R/o

Rampura Basti , Gali No 20, Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner

:

Mr. D.L.R. Vyas

For Respondent

:

Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

22/05/2019

1.

The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 04.05.2019

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bikaner in

Criminal Revision No.88/2019 upholding the order dated

27.03.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge, Shri Kolayat, Bikaner in

FIR No.20/2019, Police Thana Bajju, District Bikaner whereby

learned trial court directed the petitioner to deposit an amount

of Rs.14,37,500/- as penalty with the concerned department and

obtain a receipt thereof for release of vehicle JCB machine bearing

registration No. RJ-07/EA-0868 on supurdginama.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in

bunch of petitions, lead case being D.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.

60/2018, titled as Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, a Division Bench of

this Court on 06.04.2018, has held that if a vehicle has been

seized under the Provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development &

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-2603/2019]

Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act’), for 72 hours

competent Officer can retain the vehicle and thereafter, he is

mandatorily required to report the matter to his superior officer as

also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

Division Bench has held as under:-

“In view of the above discussion, the referred

questions are answered in the terms that

once the Officer of the Mining Department,

who seized the vehicle, has reported such

seizure to his Superior Officer and to the

Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease

to have the power to release the vehicle, and

in that event, the Magistrate having

jurisdiction would be empowered to release

such vehicle, with or without the condition of

deposit of compounding fee.”

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

petitioner is not willing to compound the offence, as he has

decided to contest the case. The orders passed by two courts

below whereby release of the vehicle on Supurdagi was refused

have been assailed.

5

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that

no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the JCV Machine and

the same is case property. The learned counsel for the petitioner

has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002)

10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the

vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police

station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful.

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-2603/2019]

6.

Learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to

refute the above position.

7.

Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case

of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), present petition is allowed

and the trial court is directed to release the JCB machine bearing

registration No. RJ-07/EA-0868 seized as case property by

imposing following conditions:-

a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released

intact and shall not change its identification.

b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when

trial court requires the same for proposed identification of

the case property.

c)

That

the

petitioner

shall

execute

Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties

to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other

conditions in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety

bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and sureties, which it

may deem fit.

8.

Needle