Madras High Court
J.Muthukumarasamy vs The State on 28 March, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2022
J.Muthukumarasamy ... Petitioner
versus
The State
Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvenkadu Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai District. ... Respondent
(Crime No.598 of 2021)
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 District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in Cr.M.P.No.2501 of
2021 dated 27.08.2021 and allow this Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Kuyilan
For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2022
ORDER
The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed praying to
set aside the order dated 27.08.2021 made in Cr.M.P.No.2501 of 2021 on
the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.
2. The petitioner is the owner of JCB bearing Registration
No.TN-82-X-9649. In a case registered in Crime No.598 of 2021 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.2501 of 2021 before the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam, praying for return of the vehicle.
4. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam,
by order dated 27.08.2021 dismissed the said petition on the ground that, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2022
respect of the said vehicle, already confiscation proceedings are initiated
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 not an accused and also he is not having
any knowledge in respect to the seizure of vehicle. He has further added that
at the time of occurrence, without the knowledge of the petitioner, the
accused took the vehicle and committed the alleged occurrence and hence,
the petitioner is no way held 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
27.08.2021 made in Cr.M.P.No.2501 of 2021.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing for the respondent police would contend that in respect to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2022
petition mentioned vehicle, already confiscation proceedings are 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, it is true
that the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in the above referred case.
However, 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 transporting the river sand, 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. In this occasion, it would necessary to see whether the petitioner
being the third party entitled to receive the petition mentioned property for
interim custody. 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.336 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.”
8. 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
the Act consciously uses the word 'shall' while dealing with confiscation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2022
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.”
9. Now, applying the ratio laid down in the above referred
judgments, herein also, being the reason that already confiscation
proceedings are started 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.”
10. 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
cognizance, it would not necessary to pass a positive order in this Revision
Case. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2022
28.03.2022
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
sri
To
1.The District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvenkadu Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2022
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
sri
Crl.R.C.No.336 of 2022
28.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
