Jharkhand High Court
Shoaib Akhtar @ Shoaib Akthar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 January, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr). No.751 of 2023
----
Shoaib Akhtar @ Shoaib Akthar .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar
3. The Superintendent of Police, Latehar
4. The Officer-In-Charge, Balumath Police Station, Latehar
.... .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C to Sr. S.C.I
----
th
07/Dated: 08 January, 2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-
(i) For quashing of the order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure-4) passed by
Balumath P.S. Case No.79 of 2022 registered under Sections
379/414 of IPC and 30 (ii) Coal Mines Act & also 21 of the
M.M.D.R Act and also 33 Indian Forest Act & also U/r-13 of the
JMMC Rules passed by Ld. Court of CJM at Latehar, whereby and
whereunder, the Ld. Court below has been pleased to reject the
release application filed by the petitioner for release of his truck
bearing Reg. No.JH-02-W-2489 seized in the present case, which is
presently pending in the Court of CJM, Latehar.
(ii) For quashing of order dated 04.05.2023 (Annexure-5) passed in
Confiscation Case No.103 of 2022 passed by Dy. Commissioner,
Latehar (Respondent No.2) whereby and whereunder, the
respondent No.2 has confiscated the vehicle of this petitioner
bearing Reg. No.JH02-W-2489 in a mechanical manner.
(iii) For directing the respondents concerned to stop the auction of the
aforesaid vehicle of this petitioner during pendency of this writ
application.
(iv) For directing the respondents concerned to immediate release the
vehicle of this petitioner bearing Reg. No.JH02-W-2489 along with
appropriate compensation.
3. It appears thatcriminal case has been lodged bearing Balumath P.S. Case No.79 of
2022 under Sections 379, 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 30(ii) of the Coal Mines
Act, Section 21 of the MMDR Act, Section 33 of Indian Forest Act and Rule 13 of the
JM(PIMTS) Rule, 2017.
4. It further appears that the truck, in question, has been seized bearing registration
No.JH02-W-2489 and for release of the same, the petitioner has approached the court of
learned C.J.M., Latehar and that has been dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2023, for the
reason that confiscation proceeding has already been initiated under Rule 13 of the JM
(PIMTS) Rule, 2017.
5. It further appears that the court of Dy. Commissioner, Lateharhas confiscated the
truck, in question, vide order dated 04.05.2023 in Confiscation Case No.103 of 2022. The
above orders have been impugned in the present criminal writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 13.09.2023
passed in W.P.(Cr.) No.502 of 2023 by this Court and has submitted that only the
criminal court taking cognizance of the offence is competent to pass the order of
confiscation and the Deputy Commissioner has no such power. For that purpose,
paragraph Nos.7 to 13 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:-
"7. Sub-section (4-A) of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 is quoted hereinbelow:
"21. (4-A) Any mineral, tool, 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.
8. Looking into the above provision, it is crystal clear that any mineral, tool, equipment,
vehicle can be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance.
9. Section 22 of the said Act speaks of cognizance of offence, which is quoted
hereinbelow:
"22. No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this
Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made
by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the
State Government."
10. Looking into the above provision, it appears that the cognizance can be taken only
on the complaint.
11. Further, Section 30-B of the said Act, 1957 speaks of constitution of Special Courts
and Section 30-C of the said Act, 1957 speaks of Special Courts' power.
12. Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 is amended by
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017, which is quoted
hereinbelow:
;fn fdlh okgu dk dksbZ pkyd y?kq [kfut dks ifjogu djrs le; l{ke inkf/kdkjh vFkok
funs'kd] [kku vFkok vij funs'kd] [kku vFkok mi funs'kd] [kku vFkok ftyk@lgk;d
[kuu inkf/kdkjh vFkok lekgrkZ vFkok lekgrkZ ;k jkT; ljdkj n~okjk izkf/kd`r fdlh
inkf/kdkjh dks izi= ^,e* vFkok >kj[k.M [kfut leuqnku fu;ekoyh] 2004 ds vUrxZr QkeZ
Mh esa ifjogu pkyku fn[kkus esa vlQy jgrk gS vFkok fujh{k.k ls bUdkj djrk gS] rks mls
vf/kdre 01 o'kZ dh dSn vFkok [kfut e~Y; dh nksxquh jkf'k ds cjkcj n.M vFkok nksuksa ,d
lkFk n.M fn;k tk ldrk gS rFkk nwljh ,oa rhljh ckj oS/k ifjogu pkyku izLrqr ugha fd,
tkus ij mijksDr ds vfrfjDr n.M dh jkf'k Øe'k% 50]000-00 ¼ipkl gtkj :i;s ,oa
1]00]000@ ¼,d yk[k½ :i;s gksxhA tk¡p djus okys inkf/kdkjh n~okjk voS/k ifjogu djrs
ik;s tkus ij okgu dks [kfut lfgr tIrfd;k tk,xk rFkk ftls fdlh ljdkjh izfr"Bku esa
vFkok LFkkfu; Fkkuk izkax.k esa lqjf{kr j[kk tk,xkA l{ke inkf/kdkjh n~okjk voS/k ifjogudrkZ
ds mijksDr n.M 'kqYd ,oa bl vk'k; dk ca/k i= ¼Bond Paper½ lefiZr fd, tkus ij fd
U;k;ky; n~okjk uksfVl fn, tkus ij mifLFkr gksaxs] okgu dks [kfut lfgr NksM+k tk ldrk
gS] ijUrq voS/k ifjogudrkZ ij fu;ekuqdwy dkjZokbZ gsrq bldh lwpuk U;k;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh
dks nh tk,xhA ca/k i= dk izi= funs'kd] [kku n~okjk vyx ls ifjpkfyr fd;k tk,xkA"
13.In view of the above facts, it is clear that the impugned orders passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Simdega is not in accordance with law. If a particular Act is there and
certain procedure are prescribed therein, the same is required to be followed, which is
lacking in the case in hand."
7. In view of the law declared by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the
Deputy Commissioner is not a competent authority to pass the order of confiscation.
Accordingly, the order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-
District Magistrate, Lateharin Confiscation Case No.103 of 2022 and the order dated
16.01.2023 passed by learned C.J.M., Latehar in connection Balumath P.S. Case No.79
of 2022 (MCA No.1686 of 2022) are hereby, set-aside.
8. Accordingly, this criminal writ petition stands allowed.
9. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the learned Court below to pass a
fresh order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Raja/-
