HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1607/2020

Sajjan Singh S/o Shri Udai Singh, Aged About 50 Years, 13,

Nawal Singh Ji Ka Guda, Kurabad, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur

(Rajasthan).

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Deelip Kawadia

For Respondent(s)

:

Mrs. Rajlaxmi Choudhary, PP

Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

04/09/2020

The present misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.06.2020

passed by learned Additional District Judge No.5, Udaipur

confirming the order passed by the trial court dated 17.06.2020,

whereby, the trial court ordered release of vehicle in favour of

petitioner imposing condition of depositing compounding fees,

royalty etc.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a

registered owner of the vehicle and if the vehicle is not released

on ‘superdginama’ and allowed to lie in open place at the police

station, it will get damaged. It is further argued that vehicle in

question is not required for any further investigation, therefore,

the vehicle is liable to be released on ‘superdginama’. Learned

counsel for the petitioner further argued that without any

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-1607/2020]

conviction recorded against the petitioner, the vehicle of the

petitioner has been confiscated. He further argued that Rule 54 of

RMMCR, 2017 is not applicable in the case of petitioner and no

challan has been filed till now. He placed reliance on the

judgment in the case of M/s The Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt Ltd

Vs. State reported in 1993 Cri.L.J 498, Girdhari & Anr. Vs State

reported in 2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 280 and this Court in the case of

Babu Singh Vs. state (S.B. Criminal misc. Petition No. 2863/2018)

decided on 07.09.2018 and Ramchandra Vs. state (S.B. Criminal

misc. Petition No. 2750/2019) decided on 24.05.2019.

Per contra, counsel for the Mining department Mr. Digvijay

Singh Jasol opposed the release of vehicle and submitted that the

vehicle in question was being used for illegal excavation and

transportation of river sand i.e. ‘Bajari’. The Bajari being carried

by the vehicle comes under the category of illegal mining of

Bajari, so the petitioner is liable to pay not only the applicable

royalty but also the compounding fees in terms of order passed by

the Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court in the case of

Khem Singh (Supra). He placed reliance on the judgment in the

case of Khem Singh (supra), S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.

6585/2019 (Bhagwan Singh Vs. State ) decided on 03.06.2020

and order of National Green Tribunal in Original Application No.

44/2016 dated 19.02.2020.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

gone through the material on record. This Court is of the opinion

that in case of continued seizure, condition of the vehicle would

deteriorate and even the Mining Department will not be able to

recover its dues. However, Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of

Khem Singh (supra) so also the National Green Tribunal has

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-1607/2020]

specifically directed that the vehicle in question may be released

only after depositing the amount payable including the royalty and

fine imposed.

The present petition is thus disposed of. It is directed that

the petitioner will be required to deposit the amount determined

by the Mining Engineer. If the amount payable by the petitioner is

not determined, the petitioner may approach the Mining Engineer,

within seven days from today, who will determine the amount

payable by the petitioner, including royalty, compounding fees etc

imposable under any applicable law or judgment(s).

On furnishing proof of depositing the amount, the concerned

trial court shall pass formal order to release the vehicle on

following conditions :-