SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - JAIPUR BEN
SHRAVANRAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJ AND ANR – Respondent
CRLMP 66/2018



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT

JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 66 / 2018

Shravanram S/o Shri Tilokaram B/c Jat, R/o Ward No.6, Baldu,

Nimbhijodhan, District Nagur, Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan Through PP.

2. Department of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan, Ajmer, Through

Mining Engineer, Ajmer

----Respondents

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aladeen Khan, PP

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

Order

24/01/2018

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that in

FIR No.170/2017 registered at PS Rupangarh, Ajmer for the

offence under Section 379 IPC & under Section 4/21 of the Mines

& Mineral (Development & Regulations) Act,1957 (‘MMDR Act’),

the matter has been compounded in regard to the vehicle seized

and a compounding fees of Rs.1,08,750/- has been deposited on

07.12.2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite this,

learned court below has rejected the application for releasing the

Vehicle (Dumper) No.RJ-37-GA-4203 in favour of the accused-

petitioner.

(2 of 2)

[CRLMP-66/2018]

On perusal of the order dated 11.12.2017, it is found that

the court below has inferred that simply by depositing the

compound fees, it cannot be presumed that the offence under

Section 4/21 of the MMDR Act has been compounded. This

inference drawn by the court is completely fallacious and cannot

be sustained. As per sub-section (2) of Section 23-A of the MMDR

Act, no further proceeding shall be taken against the offender

after compounding of offence. In view of this, the seized vehicle

ought to have been released by the court below. In view of above,

the misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 20.12.2017 passed

by learned Addl. District Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer is quashed and

set-aside. It is directed that Dumper bearing Registration No.RJ-

37-GA-4203 shall be delivered to the petitioner on ‘supurdgi’ on

his furnishing ‘Supurdginama’ in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with

two sureties in the like amount, with the undertaking to produce

the vehicle in question before the concerned court as and when

required and shall keep the condition of the vehicle intact and

shall not transfer, mortgage or otherwise alienate the vehicle or

damage it and change its shape in any manner whatsoever. The

petitioner shall also furnish photographs of the vehicle showing its

number, colour etc. It is made clear that in future if the vehicle is

found to have been used in similar offence, the same would be

liable to be confiscated.

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI) J.

Arun/55

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top