Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah. Thr. Sub ... vs Manohar S/O Lahanuji Panchbhai on 21 September, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 426 OF 2022
1. The State of Maharashtra, through Sub
Divisional Officer, Bhandara.
2. State of Maharashtra, through Depot
Manager, pauni, Tah. Pauni, Distt.
Bhandara.
3. State of Maharashtra, Through D.G.P.
Bhandara, Tah. & Distt. Bhandara.
... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Manohar s/o Lahanuji Panchbhai,
aged about 61 years, Occ. Owner,
R/o Yenola, Post Bhandara, Tah.
Pauni, Distt. Bhandara,
Mob. No. 8806576727
... RESPONDENT.
_____________________________________________________________
Shri S.M. Ukay, A.P.P. for the petitioners.
Respondent is served.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATED. : 21.09.2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Despite service of summons, the respondent chooses to
remain absent. This Court vide order dated 14.09.2022 has made it
clear that, if on the next date i.e. today, if the respondent remains
absent, the Court will go ahead with the matter on its own merits.
Despite such specific order, the respondent is absent and thus, having
no alternative left, the matter is heard on its own merits.
2. Heard the learned A.P.P. appearing for the petitioner.
3. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. The respondent's motor vehicle i.e. Tipper bearing
registration No. MH-36-F-3857 has been seized for illegally carrying
sand. The respondent (owner of tipper) has approached to the
Magistrate for its release, however the application filed under Section
457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release, has been rejected.
Being aggrieved, the respondent has invoked revisional jurisdiction of
the Sessions Court in which vide order dated 21.03.2022, the
Revisional Court has released the vehicle by reversing the order of the
Magistrate, which is impugned herein.
5. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the petitioners-State would
submit that the Revisional Court has committed the serious error in
releasing the vehicle since the vehicle was seized under the provisions
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short 'the MLR
Code'), which itself provides a mechanism for release of vehicle. The
petitioner has produced a copy of the order dated 17.01.2022 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhandara to impress that the vehicle was
seized by the Sub-Divisional Officer in terms of power invested with
him under Section 48(8)(1) of the MLR Code. It is submitted that
Section 48(8)(2) of the MLR Code provides a mechanism for release of
vehicle by the Collector or such other Officer not below the rank of the
Deputy Collector.
6. Learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the decision of this
Court dated 18.04.2022 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 219 of 2022
(State of Maharashtra, through Tahsildar, Mohadi, District Bhandara vs.
Pankaj s/o Gangadhar Gawande and anr.) with connected matters,
wherein this Court has taken a view that when a specific provision
under Section 48(8)(2) of the MLR Code has been made for release of
vehicles transporting minerals, then only the authority empowered
under the MLR Code has the jurisdiction to release the vehicle meaning
thereby general provisions of Section 457 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, would not apply.
7. In view of the above decision, the impugned order passed
under the general provisions, would not sustain in the eyes of law.
8. In view of that the petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 21.03.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2022 by the
Sessions Judge, Bhandara is hereby quashed and set aside.
9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Trupti
TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL
23.09.2022 15:21
