Madras High Court
Vignesh vs State By on 5 April, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2022
Vignesh ... Petitioner
versus
State By,
The Inspector of Police,
Kilvelur Police Station,
Nagapattinam District. ... Respondent
(Crime No.75 of 2022)
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 and
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the order of the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in
Cr.M.P.No.617 of 2022 dated 17.03.2022 and allow this Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar
For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2022
ORDER
The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed praying to
set aside the order dated 17.03.2022 made in Cr.M.P.No.617 of 2022 on
the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.
2. The petitioner is the owner of Tractor attached with
Tipper bearing Registration No.TN-51-AQ-5726 and TN-51-F-7214. In a
case registered in Crime No.75 of 2022 under Section 379 of IPC and
Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957, the respondent police, while at the time of investigation, recovered the
said vehicle and as of now, the same is in the custody of the respondent
police.
3. Pending investigation, the petitioner filed a petition in
Cr.M.P.No.617 of 2022 before the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Nagapattinam, praying for return of the vehicle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2022
4. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam, by order dated 17.03.2022 dismissed the said petition on the
ground that if the said vehicle is released, there is a possibility of
redeployment of the same for committing the same office with another set of
drivers and hence, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be sustained.
Challenging the said dismissal order, the present revision petition has been
filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and without his
knowledge, only the driver of the vehicle involved in the offence and the
petitioner is no way responsible for the alleged occurrence. Further, if the
petition mentioned vehicle is exposed in the sunlight, the value of the
vehicle become depreciated and therefore, this petition has been filed
praying for return of the vehicle, by setting aside the order dated 17.03.2022
made in Cr.M.P.No.617 of 2022.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing for the respondent police would contend that the petitioner, who is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2022
the owner of the vehicle, is arrayed as an accused in this case. He would
further submit that in respect to the petition mentioned vehicle, confiscation
proceedings are now initiated and hence, the property now stated in the
petition shall not be given to the petitioner.
7. Now, on going through the rival submissions made by
the learned counsel appearing on either side with relevant records, the
petitioner is arrayed as an accused in the above referred case. On going
through the nature of offence committed in the petition mentioned case,
during the relevant point of time, the petition mentioned vehicle was used for
transportation of illegal sand mining, which is violative of Section 21(1) of
the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. Further, the
learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent
police contended that, now confiscation proceedings are initiated.
8. In this regard, it would necessary and useful to see the
judgment dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.(MD)No.19936 of 2017 wherein, it has observed as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2022
“2.Taking note of the prevailing situation, we have passed the following
order on 24.09.2018:
“We have perused the report filed by the third respondent District
Collector, Pudukkottai. From the submissions made on both sides, we are
satisfied that not only in the place, which is subject matter of writ petition,
but also in the entire State indiscriminately mining is going on illegally by
using vehicles and bullock carts. The action taken is far and few. We are
afraid to say that even this is mainly restricted to only imposing of fine. The
vehicles involved are either released by the official respondents or by the
Courts. Every thing has become a part of the routine transaction. The action
taken so far has not yielded any result. Sand in the present form takes
thousands of years. Removal of the sand will lead to the destruction of the
rivers. At this speed, we may lose the rivers once for all. A report of NITI
Aayog – a Government Think Tank, indicates that by 2050 there will not be
any water for the entire State. 21 cities including Chennai will run out of
ground water affecting about 100 million people. The aforesaid situation is
the stock reality bourne out of the greed of the man. May be, the generation
next might see water only in bottle. Day in and day out we are forced to
deal with such cases. However, illegal mining goes on unchecked under our
nose. This is the reality.”
9. Further, in the same judgment, it has held as follows:
“7.Section 21(4) of the Act deals with the power to seize any
vehicle, equipment or tool involved in illicit mining by an officer or an
authority specially empowered. As per Section 21(4-A), such a vehicle,
equipment, tool or mineral shall be liable to be confiscated by the order of
the Court, competent to take cognizance. We may note Section 21(4-A) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2022
the Act consciously uses the word 'shall' while dealing with confiscation.
Therefore, if the Court concerned is of the view that any vehicle, mineral,
tool, equipment or any other things seized, is involved with any violation,
then, it has to be followed by confiscation and disposal.”
10. Now, applying the ratio laid down in the above referred
judgments, herein also, when the petitioner himself is arrayed as an accused,
he is not entitled to receive the petition mentioned property for interim
custody. Being the reason that confiscation proceedings are now initiated,
allowing this revision petition would futile the entire process of confiscation,
further, Section 21 (4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, reads as follows;
“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.”
11. Therefore, in the light of the above discussions stated
supra, being the reason that the property recovered under the provisions of
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, has to be
mandatorily confiscated by an order of the Court competent to take
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2022
cognizance, it would not necessary to pass a positive order in this Revision
Case. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
05.04.2022
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
lok
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kilvelur Police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2022
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
lok
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2022
05.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
