HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT

JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 356 / 2018

Ramdev S/o Bhagu B/c Rawat, R/o Village Bubani, P.S. Gegal,

Tehsil & Distt. Ajmer, Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

----Respondent

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshat Chaudhary

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.314/2017 registered at PS Madanganj, Ajmer for the

offence under Section 4/21 of the Mines & Mineral (Development &

Regulations) Act,1957 (‘MMDR Act’) & under Section 379 IPC, the

matter has been compounded in regard to the vehicle seized and a

compounding fees of Rs.26,400/- has been deposited on

23.11.2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite this,

learned court below has rejected the application for releasing the

Vehicle (Tractor) No.RJ-01-RB-1799 alongwith trolley in favour of

the accused-petitioner.

On perusal of the order dated 14.12.2017, it is found that

(2 of 2)

[CRLMP-356/2018]

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 21.12.2017 passed by learned Addl. District Judge,

Kishangarh, Ajmer is quashed and set-aside. It is directed that

Tractor bearing Registration No.RJ-01-RB-1799 alongwith trolley

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/75