Jharkhand High Court
Shiv Charan Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2021
1 Cr.M.P. No. 405 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 405 of 2021
Shiv Charan Mahato, aged about 49 years, son of Rajkumar Mahato,
Resident of village Narsinghpur, P.O. Manikbazar, P.S. Seraikella, District-
Seraikella-Kharsawan ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl. P.P.
-----
08/17.08.2021. Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned Spl. P.P. for the opposite party-State.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video
Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account
the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have
complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent
this matter has been heard on merit.
3. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the order dated
15.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in
Criminal Revision No.11 of 2020, whereby the revision has been dismissed
and the order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has been confirmed.
4. The Circle Officer of Rajnagar lodged F.I.R. on 30.05.2020 alleging
that at the time of raid at Dumardiha Panchayat village Chapara and at
panchayat Kuzu, village Surajdih, tractors and trolleys were being seized
and alleged that sand was illegally transported by those tractors and
trolleys.
5. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
commercial vehicles of the petitioner has been seized and F.I.R. has been
lodged under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Rule 4/54 of the
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and Rule 9 of the
Jharkhand Mineral Transit Rules, 2005. He further submits that without
giving any reason and only on the ground of Section and Rules, the trial
court has come to the conclusion that the vehicles in question are not fit to
be released. He also submits the revisional court has also rejected the
revision petition only on the ground that the confiscation proceeding has
been initiated. He also submits that the offence, as alleged took place on
30.05.2020 and the vehicles in question were seized by the Circle Officer,
Rajnagar. He further submits that the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of
Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 came into force vide
notification dated 27.01.2018 and published in gazette on 01.02.2018. By
way of referring Rule 11 of the said Rules, which is meant for search,
seizure and confiscation, he submits that the Circle Officer has got no power
and authority to seize the vehicles in question. He also submits that the
confiscation proceeding has not been initiated as yet and for that the
petitioner has not received any notice for confiscation.
6. Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State
submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and the concerned
courts have right passed the impugned orders. He further submits that the
vehicles in question of the petitioner has been rightly seized by the Circle
Officer, Rajnagar.
7. On perusal of the revisional order dated 15.01.2021, it transpires that
the vehicles in question were not released by considering the confiscation
proceeding and as per Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Rule 4/54 of
the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and Rule 9 of the
Jharkhand Mineral Transit Rules, 2005, the vehicles should be forfeited to
the State Government. The trial court, vide order dated 13.08.2020 has also
rejected the petition on the same ground. On perusal of the Jharkhand
Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules,
2017, it transpires that the Circle Officer has got no power to seize the
vehicle. It is crystal clear that the vehicles of the petitioner was seized by
the Circle Officer, Rajnagar and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
2004 and Jharkhand Mineral Transit Rules, 2005 have been invoked in the
case of the petitioner for the occurrence taken place in the year 2020,
which was repealed by the aforesaid notification dated 27.01.2018. Thus,
prima facie it appears that Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004
and Jharkhand Mineral Transit Rules, 2005 have been wrongly invoked in
the case of the petitioner. The confiscation proceeding has also not been
initiated as yet and for that the petitioner has not received any notice. For
the end of justice, this criminal miscellaneous petition is maintainable in
view of the fact that there is revisional order, which is also under challenge
in this petition.
8. The vehicles in question are commercial and it is of no use to keep
such vehicles at the police station for a long period. This aspect of the
matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gujarat reported in
(2002) 10 SCC 283. Paragraphs 5 and 17 of the said judgment are
quoted herein below:-
"5. Section 451 clearly empowers the court to pass
appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as:
(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or
trial;
(2) to order it to be said or otherwise disposed of, after
recording such
(3) If the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, the
dispose of the same.
xxx xxx xxx
"17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to
keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long
period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders
immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well
as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any
point of time. This can be done pending hearing of
applications for return of such vehicles."
9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned
order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Seraikella in Criminal Revision No.11 of 2020 and the order dated
13.08.2020 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Seraikella in Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 33 of 2020 are quashed. The vehicles,
in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking
on the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond to the satisfaction
of the court below.
(ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a commercial
vehicle of District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
(iii) That the petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the
ownership of the vehicle on hire purchase agreement or mortgage or
in any manner.
(iv) He shall not change or tamper with the identification of the
vehicle in any manner.
(v) He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial
Court.
10. The trial court is at liberty to impose any other terms and conditions
which the trial Court deems fit and proper.
11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
