Jharkhand High Court
Subal Saha @ Subol Saha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 129 of 2021
1. Subal Saha @ Subol Saha, aged about 56 years, son of Mahadeo
Saha, resident of Chhota Gargram, Patna, P.O. & P.S. Barharwa,
District- Sahibganj, Jharkhand
2. Chhatu Mahto @ Chatu Mahto @ Chhatu Saha, aged about 57 years,
son of Gurudayal Mahto, resident of Village Labda, P.O. & P.S.
Barharwa, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O., P.S. & District- Pakur
3. The Superintendent of Police, Pakur, P.O., P.S. & District- Pakur
4. The Officer-in-Charge, Hiranpur, P.O. & P.S. Hiranpur, District- Pakur
... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashish Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-II
-----
06/26.10.2021. Heard Mr. Din Dayal Saha, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the order dated
09.03.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No.09 of 2021 as well as the order
dated 20.02.2021 passed in Hiranpur P.S. Case No.53 of 2020, G.R. No. 511
of 2020, registered under Rule 9(i), 13(i) and 13(ii) of the Jharkhand
Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017
and later on added Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, by
which the petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C., for release of tractor and trailer
having Registration No.JH-17N-7302 and JH-17P-4686 respectively of the
petitioners was rejected.
3. A First Information Report being Hiranpur P.S. Case No.53 of 2020
was registered on 17.07.2020 against the said vehicles as well as the driver
and owner of the said vehicles under Rule 9(i), 13(i) and 13(ii) of the
Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage)
Rules, 2017 and later on added Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal
Code on a written report of the Officer-in-Charge of Hiranpur Police Station
with the pretext that the informant, District Mining Officer, Pakur informed
on 16.07.2020 that some vehicles being Registration No.JH-17N-7302 and
JH-17P-4686 with sand were seized and kept at Hiranpur Police Station and
on demand of transport challan, the drivers leaving behind their tractors fled
away and thereafter the instant case has been lodged against the drivers
and owners of the vehicles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the commercial
vehicles of the petitioner has been seized and F.I.R. has been lodged under
Rule 9(i), 13(i) and 13(ii) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal
Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017 and later on added Sections 379
and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 in the instant case up till now, no confiscation
proceeding is going on, rather the petitioners have valid documents relating
to the said tractor and trailer. He further submits that the petitioners are
entitled to get their vehicles released as they are the rightful owners of the
same and the vehicles have been seized illegally.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the
impugned orders and the concerned courts have rightly passed the
impugned orders. He further submits that the vehicles in question of the
petitioners have been rightly seized.
6. On perusal of the revisional order dated 09.03.2021, it transpires that
the vehicles in question were not released by considering the confiscation
proceeding and as per Rule 9(i), 13(i) and 13(ii) of the Jharkhand Minerals
(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017, the
vehicles should be forfeited to the State Government. The trial court, vide
order dated 20.02.2021 has also rejected the petition on the same ground.
The confiscation proceeding is going on. For the end of justice, this criminal
writ petition is maintainable in view of the fact that there is revisional order,
which is also under challenge in this petition.
7. 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."
8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussions, the order dated
09.03.2021 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Pakur in Criminal Revision No.09 of 2021 as well as the order dated
20.02.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Pakur in
Hiranpur P.S. Case No.53 of 2020, G.R. No. 511 of 2020 are quashed. The
vehicles, in question shall be released in favour of the petitioners on their
undertakings on the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioners shall furnish 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 Pakur (Jharkhand).
(iii) That the petitioners shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the
ownership of the vehicles on hire purchase agreement or mortgage
or in any manner.
(iv) They shall not change or tamper with the identification of the
vehicles in any manner.
(v) They shall produce the vehicles as and when directed by the Trial
Court.
9. The trial court is at liberty to impose any other terms and conditions
which the trial Court deems fit and proper.
10. Accordingly, this criminal writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
