Daso Prasad Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3687 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P. (C) No. 6346 of 2012
                         ........

Daso Prasad Mahto                       ....  ..... Petitioner
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others         ....  ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ............

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/State : Ms. Shreshtha Mehta, A.C. to Mr. Prabhat Kumar, S.C.-II.

........

08/29.09.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh and learned counsel for the State, Ms. Shreshtha Mehta, A.C. to Mr. Prabhat Kumar, S.C.-II.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh has submitted that during pendency of the Confiscation Case No. 17/2011, the truck of the petitioner bearing registration no. JH- 02F-2063 may be released as it is lying in the open air in the premises of the police station due to pendency of the confiscation case and truck is subjected to natural decay and the value of truck will deteriorate day by day, which is only source of livelihood of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed judgment passed by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.11.2011 passed in W.P. (C) No. 5507/2011 and has submitted that the truck may be released.

Learned counsel for the State, Ms. Shreshtha Mehta, A.C. to Mr. Prabhat Kumar, S.C.-II has submitted that the truck of the petitioner was seized in connection with Mandu (W.B.) P.S. Case No. 37/11 dated 26.02.2011 under Sections 414/34 I.P.C., as the truck was found transporting the illegal coal loaded in it.

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that though the truck has been seized in a police case, but since a confiscation case has been initiated, the truck may not be released, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Vrs. Smt. Kallo Bai, reported in

(2017) 14 SCC 502, whereby the Apex Court has held that the criminal prosecution is distinct from the confiscation proceedings.

Learned counsel for the State has relied upon Para-23 & 24 of the aforesaid judgment, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"23. Criminal prosecution is distinct from confiscation proceedings. The two proceedings are different and parallel, each having a distinct purpose. The object of confiscation proceeding is to enable speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of the produce and the means used for committing the offence while the object of the prosecution is to punish the offender. The scheme Adhiniyam prescribes an independent procedure for confiscation. The intention of prescribing separate proceedings is to provide a deterrent mechanism and to stop further misuse of the vehicle.

24. At the cost of repetition we clarify that confiscatory proceedings are independent of the main criminal proceedings. In view of our detailed discussion in the preceding paragraph we are of opinion that High Court as well as revisional court erred in coming to a conclusion that the confiscation under the law was not permissible unless the guilt of the accused is completely established."

Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that the confiscation proceeding is pending before Confiscation Officer vide Confiscation Case No. 17/2011 for more than 10 years, as petitioner is not appearing before the concerned authority, as such, this Court may direct Confiscation Officer to decide the confiscation case in accordance with law, but the truck may not be released in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court.

Considering such submissions, this Court is not inclined to release the vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration no. JH-02F-2063 at this stage in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kallo Bai (Supra) and the petitioner is also not co-operating in the Confiscation Proceedings.

However, petitioner is directed to appear before the Confiscation Officer along with copy of this order within 30 days from today.

The Confiscation Officer shall decide the issue within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner in the aforesaid Confiscation Case No. 17/2011.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-