HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2331/2019

Jeet Ram S/o Kannu Ram Gurjar, B/c Gurjar, R/o Akbarpur, Police

Station Shri Mahaveerji, District Karauli, Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. V.S. Chauhan

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Atul Sharma, Public Prosecutor

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Judgment / Order

10/04/2019

By this petition which is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is

prayed that the order dated 27.03.2019 passed by Civil Judge &

Judicial Magistrate, Shri Mahaveerji, District Karauli be set aside,

whereby the said Court refused to release J.C.B. Machine bearing

registration No. RJ-34-EA-0398, Engine No. H 00155528 &

CHASSIS No.HAR3DXSST 02588940 to the petitioner.

The order passed by the Court below whereby release of the

vehicle on Supurdagi was refused has been assailed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Cr. Misc. Petition

No.60/2018, titled as Laxman Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided

on 06.04.2018, held that if a vehicle has been seized under the

Provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act,

1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act’), for 72 hours competent Officer can

retain the vehicle and thereafter, it is mandatory for him to report

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-2331/2019]

the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having

jurisdiction.

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

at Bar that the petitioner Jeet Ram is the registered owner and no

confiscation proceedings are pending qua the J.C.B. Machine and

the same is case property of case FIR No.67/2019 registered at

Police Station Shri Mahaveerji, District Karauli, for the offences

under Section 379 IPC and Section 4/21 of MMRD Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on

the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court on Sunderbhai Ambalal

Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 and submitted

that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the vehicle should

not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as the

same shall remain gather rust and shall remain unuseful.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The Division Bench of this Court in Laxman Vs. State of

Rajasthan (supra), 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 would be empowered to release

such vehicle, with or without the condition

of deposit of compounding fee.”

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and 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

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-2331/2019]

J.C.B. Machine 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.

Needless to say, trial Court shall make verification that

the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle.

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

Mohit Rohila /69