Jharkhand High Court
Asha Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 June, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 144 of 2022
----
Asha Devi, aged about 36 years, wife of late Dashrath Mahto, resident of
Ara Basti, baglata Near Hanuman Mandir, PO and PS Mandu, District
Ramgarh ..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate
----
3/06.06.2022 This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated
14.12.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in
Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.6782/2020 which has been filed for
release of Tata 709 vehicle bearing registration no.JH02M7671 which has
been seized in connection with Ormanjhi PS Case No.2009/19
corresponding to G.R. No.2332/21 which has been lodged for the offence
punishable under sections 379/34 of the IPC, section 54 and 4 of
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules and Sections 8,9 of Jharkhand
Mineral Dealers Rules, 2007 whereby the application of the petitioner has
been dismissed as not maintainable which is pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
The First Information Report was registered
alleging therein that on written report given by one Shiv
Shankar Pandal, Circle Officer, alleging therein that he was on
his duty. On 1.12.2019 he reached near Kherabera Booth
No.66 then he saw two Turbo 709 vehicle are coming
towards him and when he tried to stop them the driver of
the vehicle left the vehicle and had fled away and from the
vehicle of this petition, it has been alleged that 140 Cft.
Stone chips was loaded and they have failed to produce any
document. He has further stated that from the local villagers
he has come to know that lots of illegal crusher is being
running in the said area and accordingly after preparation of
seizure list the present first information report has been
instituted.
Mr. Avishek Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the stone
chips in question which was being transported in the vehicle of this
petitioner. He submits that, however, a petition for release of the vehicle
was filed by the respective owner. He submits that this vehicle is
commercial in nature and the trial has not been concluded as yet. He
further submits that there is provision of confiscation of the seized article
in terms of section 21(4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957. He further submits that confiscation is required to
be done once the trial is concluded and the petitioner is found to be
guilty in the trial. He further submits that in view of amendment in Rule
54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 which was
incorporated in Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. By virtue Rule 54(5) of the
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner is
required to pay the double amount of the minerals and the goods in
question can be released.
Mr. Devesh Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent State submits that in light of Rule 54(5) of
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner is the
owner of the vehicle. He further submits that for release of the vehicle,
the petitioner is required to follow the procedure as an interim measure.
Since the petitioner is not claiming the stone chips as he
has submitted that he is not the owner and only the transporter, there is
no need to deposit the double amount if the stone chips in question is
not being claimed by the petitioner. For the sake of convenience, section
21(4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957) is quoted hereinbelow:
"21.(4-A) Any mineral, took, equipment, vehicle or any
other thing seized under sub-section (4), shall be liable to be
confiscated by an order of the Court competent to take
cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1) and shall be
disposed of in accordance with the directions of such Court."
On plain reading of this provision, it is clear that the word
used "vehicle or anything seized", literally the use of word, in the section
that any vehicle or anything seized shall be liable to be confiscated by an
order of the court competent to take cognizance, and at the stage it is
found, the section connotes that a finding has to be arrived that the
vehicle was used for transportation of stone chips or mineral in
contravention of the provisions of the Act. Such finding can only be
arrived if it is brought on record during the enquiry or trial meaning
thereby that the charges /allegations have to be proved that the vehicle
was used in contravention of the provisions of the Act whereafter the
vehicle will be forfeited by the State Government by order of the court. It
is not disputed in the instant case that no proceeding has been initiated
for confiscation neither does the Act provides for initiation of confiscation
proceeding and, moreover, the vehicle is lying at the police station
without any use in an uncared manner. On plain reading of the above
provision, it is crystal clear from (whenever a vehicle is found to have
been used ........") and it further says that the vehicle should be forfeited
to the State Government by order of the court, meaning thereby once
the trial is concluded and the conviction is held by the trial court then
only the forfeiture of the vehicle will come in to effect. The vehicle in
question is commercial as indicated and this aspect of the matter has
been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat" reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283.
Paragraph nos.5 and 17 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:
"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.
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."
In view of the above facts and settled law, the detention of
the vehicle is of no use as it will not only lead to damage and loss of
utility of the vehicle but will also cause a loss of revenue to the
Government due to non-pliance of the commercial vehicle.
The trial court is directed to grant interim custody of Tata
709 vehicle bearing registration no.JH02M7671 by ordering it to be
released in favour of the petitioner on his giving an undertaking on the
following terms and conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond to the tune of
rupees as disclosed in the Insurance paper assessing the
value of the vehicle in question with two sureties.
(ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a
commercial vehicle of District-Ranchi.
(iii) That the petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer
the ownership of the vehicle on hire purchase agreement in
any manner.
(iv) He shall not change or tamper with the identification of
the vehicle in any manner, and
(v) He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the
trial court.
The trial court is at liberty to impose any other terms and
condition as the trial court may deems it fit and proper.
With the above direction, the impugned order dated
14.12.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Miscellaneous
Criminal Application No.6782/2020 is hereby set-aside.
W.P.(Cr.) No. 144 of 2022 is allowed and disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/
