The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the Deputy Commissioner -cum- District Magistrate is not a competent authority to pass the order of confiscation of commercial vehicles.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the criminal case was lodged for the offense under Sections 379/ 414/ 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30 (ii) of the Coal Mines Act, Section 21(4)/ (4A)/ (5) of the M.M.D.R. Act, Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and storage) Rules, 2017. The present criminal writ petition is filed seeking quashing of the order passed where the Deputy commissioner ordered confiscating the Commercial vehicle and issuing directions for the release of the Commercial vehicle.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the vehicle seized was never involved in the illegal activity. It was furthermore submitted that the order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not as per the law. Also, as per the mandate of Section 21(4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957, only the criminal court taking cognizance of the offense is competent to pass the order of confiscation and the Deputy Commissioner -cum- District Magistrate has no such power.
Observation of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that a confiscation order for a commercial vehicle cannot be issued by the Deputy Commissioner - cum - District Magistrate.
Based on these considerations, the court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner -cum- District Magistrate.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the criminal writ petition.
Case title: Shahid Ansari V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar
Case No.: W.P.(Cr.) No.340 of 2024
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate Mr. Anshuman Om, Advocate Mr. Haroon Rasheed, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Ms. Rishi Bharati, A.C to A.A.G.-III
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
