Madras High Court
Ramar vs The State Rep.By on 23 October, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.894 of 23023 15.09.2023
Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos.878 and 890 of 23023 17.08.2023
Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos. 30.08.2023
470, 551, 671, 756, 749, 870, 909 and
958 of 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD).No. 13.09.203
1021 of 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos. 19.09.2023
911 and 1035 of 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD).No. 20.09.2023
1045 of 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD).No. 21.09.2023
1049 of 2023
PRONOUNCED ON
11.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.RC(MD).Nos.470, 551, 671, 749, 756, 870, 878, 890, 894, 909, 911,
958, 1021, 1035, 1045, 1049 of 2023
Crl.R.C(MD).No.470 of 2023
Ramar .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
M.Reddiapatti Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.23 of 2023) .. Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to set-aside the impugned order dated 23.10.2023
made in Crl.M.P.No.107 of 2023, on the file of the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur and consequently, to direct
the respondents to return the petitioner's vehicle, namely Tipper Lorry
bearing registration number TN-67-R-5312 to the petitioner.
Appearance for respective petitioners:-
Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos. Name of the Counsel
470 of 2023 Mr.S.Vidhya Sagar
551 of 2023 Mr.D.Venkatesh
671 of 2023 Mrs.A.Banumathy
749 of 2023 Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass
756 of 2023 Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass
870 of 2023 Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan
878 of 2023 Mr.N.Anandakumar
890 of 2023 Ms.S.Prabha for
Mr.D.Rameshkumar
894 of 2023 Mr.D.Rajaboopathy
909 of 2023 Mr.A.Ramesh
911 of 2023 Mr.B.Muneeswaran
958 of 2023 Mr.J.Madhu
1021 of 2023 Mr.R.J.Karthik
1035 of 2023 Mr.T.Selvakumaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1045 of 2023 Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja
1049 of 2023 Mr.C.Ezhilarasu
For Respondent
in all cases : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by different
petitioners challenging the orders passed by the court below, rejecting the
plea of the petitioners for return of vehicles, which are alleged to have been
involved in illegal sand mining, resultantly seized by the respondent police.
2. In all the above cases, the petitioners are the owners of the
vehicles in question. According to the prosecution, the vehicles in question
were involved in offences for having transported illegally quarried
sand/savudu or caused damage to water bodies and thereupon, the
respondent police had registered cases under Sections 379 IPC and Section
21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957,
respectively, seized the vehicles in question and kept in the custody of the
respondent police. The petitioners, filed petition before the Court below
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
under Section 451 Cr.P.C, to return their vehicles. The Court below,
dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioners vehicles were
involved in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 (herein after called as “MMDR Act”) and in some cases, the vehicles
were involved in the same offence repeatedly. Hence, they approached this
Court, by way of filing these Criminal Revision Cases.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners made the following
submissions:
(i) The petitioners are innocent and false case have been foisted
against them. The vehicles in question were also roped in the cases without
any transportation of the illegally quarried sand/savudu, etc.,
(ii) The seized vehicles are kept idle in open space exposed to all
weather conditions and thereby the value of the vehicles gets diminished
and hence, they seeks an interim custody of their vehicles.
(iii)To substantiate the said submissions, the learned counsel for
the petitioners placed reliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reported in 2003 (1) CTC 175.
(iv) The petitioners also undertakes to obey any conditions likely
to be imposed by this Court.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in most
of cases, the vehicles were involved in second time. Due to the illegalities
committed by them, the entire environment is very much affected. Under
Section 21(4-A) of the MMDR Act, specifically authorised the competent
Court to complete the confiscation proceedings. In view of the query raised
with regard to the competency of the persons, the confiscation proceedings
are not invoked in letter and spirit. Now, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this
Court has decided the issue affirmatively i.e., investigating officer is entitled
to initiate the confiscation proceedings. Taking advantage of the absence of
the initiation of the confiscation proceedings, the petitioners have filed the
petitions under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., seeking interim custody of their
vehicles. Since the investigating agencies are now taking steps to initiate the
confiscation proceedings, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks for
dismissal of these Criminal Revision Cases.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners, by way of reply, submitted
that in the above cases, till date, the confiscation proceedings has not been
initiated. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to seeks relief as prayed in
the petitions.
6. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
7. Mining is the process which is directly involved with the
environment. Considering this basic principle enunciated under the
Constitution of India under Article 51 A and 48 A, the MMDR Act was
enacted and a duty is cast upon the Government to take all possible steps for
the conservation and systematic development of minerals in India and for
the protection of environment by preventing or controlling any pollution
which may be caused by the impending mining operations.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Illegal mining of the sand and other minerals is a menace. The
MMDR Act, also provides penal provisions initially without confiscation
provision. In addition to the effective Penal Provisions, is available under
Section 21 of the MMDR Act, to prevent the illegal mining and
transportation of minerals, Tamil Nadu Government brought Tamil nadu
Mines and Minerals of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage of
Minerals and Mineral Dealers, Rules, 2011.
8.1 Registering the criminal cases will make little impact. It is a
common experience that disposal of criminal cases takes long time. The
alternative scheme of confiscation proceedings has been provided partly to
overcome the adverse consequences resulting in delay for disposal of
criminal prosecutions involving confiscation. The confiscation of the
vehicle is one of the effective tool for protecting the illegal mining and
preserving the environment. Confiscation proceeding is one of the measure
to curb menace of the illegal mining. Its aim is to protect the environment as
mandated under the constitution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.2.In such circumstances, the parliament incorporated Section
21(4-A) of the Act, with the power of confiscation by way of amendment in
the year 2015.The 21(4-A) which is as follows:
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.
8.3.The object of the amendment to bring Section 21 A is to ensure
the vehicle, which has been used in the illegal transportation, is no longer
available for such misuse and to act as deterrent for the offenders and
others.
8.4.Criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings are parallel
proceedings and having distinct purpose and object. The same was dealt
with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [Divl. Forest Officer v.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.V. Sudhakar Rao, reported in (1985) 4 SCC 573. The relevant portion of
the said judgment is as follows:
“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 of
the 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.”
9. Despite the above stringent provisions available, the menace of
illegal mining activities in the state is not effectively controlled and
therefore, taking cognizance of the same, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in W.P(MD).No.19936 of 2017 etc., batch issued various directions to
the Government in its order dated 29.10.2018. One of the direction is that
the Government has to initiate the confiscation proceedings. The said
directions are extracted as follows;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. ...A complaint has to be made
immediately after seizure, preferably, within a period
of one week. Thereafter, appropriate application can
be made for confiscation, which might include a
vehicle, said to have been involved.
13.As recorded earlier, illegal mining is
carrying on unabatedly under the very nose of the
revenue officials, which can be taken as judicial note
of this Court with a fond hope that the same can be
controlled in future.
9.1.Despite of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench, no progress
has been made in this State for stopping the illegal mining and
transportation and none of the vehicle involved in illegal mining, though
seized, has been confiscated.
9.2.Further, this Court in Crl.R.C.No.755 of 2021 painfully
observed as;
10. The times of yore need a wind-up and
perception requires a change as everything that has a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
beginning, has an ending. The mother earth is our
heritage, which has been inherited by us from our past
generations without much damage and in fact with many
developments, to enjoy all its treasures conserving all its
goodness and not making any defacement under the
guise of development, to be bestowed on our future
generations.
Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but
not every man’s greed.-Mahatma Gandhi.
While the geologists proclaim that the age of the earth
where we live now is 4.543 billion years, the ecologists
expound that it is our responsibility to leave this planet
in a better shape for the future generations than we
found it, rather, to close our eyes on the cruelty being
committed to our precious earth and take pride in our
search for an alien planet with least infrastructure by
spending huge money to survive afresh. In the present
generation, the deterioration rate is at a new pace. We
see perennial rivers that were once flowing with clean
water are now converted into drainage channels to
carry effluence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.The illegal mining is in fact increasing due to the lethargic attitude on
the part of the law enforcing authorities and the officials concerned. By
creating an unintended ambiguity in interpreting the provision of 21 of the
Mines and Minerals act, the officials, who are the competent person to
initiate the complaint and the confiscation, as mandated under Section 21 of
the MMDR Act, have failed to discharge their duties. Now the said issue
was also settled by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in in W.P.(MD).No.
14341 of 2022, the same is as follows:
vi. In view of the aforesaid finding of this
Court with regard to joint trial by the Special Court,
this Court directs the police authorities, who have
registered FIR for the offence u/s 379 IPC to file the
final report and the person authorised u/s 21 (4), who
has seized the vehicle to file, private complaint before
the concerned Magistrate Court/Special Court and in
case the police officer has seized the vehicle u/s 21 (4)
of the MMDR Act and also lodged the FIR u/s 379
IPC, to file final report and private complaint before
the concerned Magistrate Court/Special Court, within
a period of three months from the date of this order.
Upon filing of the final report by the police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
authorities, the concerned Magistrate is directed to
commit the case forthwith to the Special Court having
jurisdiction. The Special Courts, which have received
the private complaints filed by the person authorised
under the MMDR Act shall take up the case along with
the case committed in respect of IPC offences, if any,
relating to the same offender jointly and shall
complete the trial as expeditiously as possible upon
filing of private complaint/committal of the case.
10.1.As per the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench, as stated supra,
the investigating officer has power to prefer the private complaint before the
learned Special Judge namely the Principal Sessions Judge of each district
under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals Act against the accused. The
said investigating officer has also got power to submit application to initiate
the confiscation proceedings against the vehicles involved in the illegal
mining activity.
10.2. From the reading of Section 21(4-A) of the MMDR Act, it is
clear that the duty is cost upon the investigating officer or the officials
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
concerned, who seized the vehicle, to initiate the confiscation proceedings
before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge of the District
concerned. In spite of the specific directions issued by the Hon'ble Division
Bench, timely action has not been taken to confiscate the vehicle involved
in illegal transportation of the mines, by implementating of Section 21 (4-A)
of the Act. To ascertain the said fact, this Court directed the Director
General of Police to furnish details of the number of cases registered and the
number of the confiscation proceedings initiated. Pursuant to the said
direction, The Director General of Police submitted a detailed report and the
material portion of the report reads as follows:
Annexure- TOTAL CASES
Sl. Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
No
1 Number of cases registered under 3505 2892 7016 10635 9684 10644 7388 4662 2679
Mines and Minerals Act
2 Number of vehicles involved and 3737 3162 7673 11344 10772 11535 7971 5160 2188
seized under Mines and Minerals
Act
3 Number of cases in which 27 25 192 265 473 552 368 239 77
confiscation proceedings initiated
against the vehicle involved under
MM Act
4. In how many cases, confiscation 31 39 235 298 677 758 440 284 113
proceedings are pending
5. In how many cases, confiscation 11 6 32 69 82 104 45 32 4
proceedings were completed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.3. From the above data, it is apparent that, there is total non
implementation of the provision of the Act namely, confiscation of the
vehicle. Unfortunately, the confiscation proceeding has not been properly
initiated. From the data, it is seen that from 2015 to May 2023, totally
59,105 cases were registered and 63,542 number of vehicles involved in the
transportation of the illegal minerals were seized with sand and minerals
and only against 2,218 vehicles, confiscation proceedings were initiated and
confiscation proceedings were completed only for 385 cases.
10.4.The registration of the case Under Section 379 of IPC and
initiation of the criminal proceedings under section 21 of the MMDR Act do
not meet the present day requirements to prevent the menace of illegal
mining. As stated above, totally 59,105 number of cases were registered and
pursuance, 63,542 number of vehicles were seized with minerals. In most of
the cases, the accused persons were repeatedly involved in the same offence.
The same vehicles are indulging again and again in the illegal mining. To
curb the menace of the illegal mining and to protect the environment, as
mandated under the constitution and under the MMDR Act this Court is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
duty bound to analyze the reason for the same.
10.5.On analyzing the previous history from the data furnished by
the Director General of Police, it appears that existing law has not been
implemented by the authorities letter and spirit, which resulted in the above
rampant increase of the case of illegal mining and transportation and
damages to the environment.
10.6.According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the infringement of
law is treated as worse state of affairs and held that it is worse than not
enacting a law at all. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in the case of Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v.
Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281 is extracted as under:
25..... If the mere enactment of the laws
relating to the protection of environment was to
ensure a clean and pollution-free environment, then
India would, perhaps, be the least polluted country in
the world. But, this is not so. There are stated to be
over 200 Central and State Statutes which have at
least some concern with environment protection,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
either directly or indirectly. The plethora of such
enactments has, unfortunately, not resulted in
preventing environmental degradation which, on the
contrary, has increased over the years. Enactment of a
law, relating to protection of environment, usually
provides for what activity can or cannot be done by
people. If the people were to voluntarily respect such
a law, and abide by it, then it would result in law
being able to achieve the object for which it was
enacted. Where, however, there is a conflict between
the provision of law and personal interest, then it
often happens that self-discipline and respect for law
disappears.
26.Enactment of a law, but tolerating its
infringement, is worse than not enacting a law at all.
The continued infringement of law, over a period of
time, is made possible by adoption of such means
which are best known to the violators of law.
Continued tolerance of such violations of law not only
renders legal provisions nugatory but such tolerance
by the enforcement authorities encourages
lawlessness and adoption of means which cannot, or
ought not to, be tolerated in any civilized society. ..
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
....The primary effort of the court, while dealing with
the environmental-related issues, is to see that the
enforcement agencies, whether it be the State or any
other authority, take effective steps for the
enforcement of the laws. The courts, in a way, act as
the guardian of the people's fundamental rights but in
regard to many technical matters, the courts may not
be fully equipped. Perforce, it has to rely on outside
agencies for reports and recommendations whereupon
orders have been passed from time to time. Even
though, it is not the function of the court to see the
day-to-day enforcement of the law, that being the
function of the Executive, but because of the non-
functioning of the enforcement agencies, the courts as
of necessity have had to pass orders directing the
enforcement agencies to implement the law. ..
42. .....The High Courts would be in a
better position to ascertain facts and to ensure and
examine the implementation of the anti-pollution laws
where the allegations relate to the spreading of
pollution or non-compliance of other legal provisions
leading to the infringement of the anti-pollution laws.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For a more effective control and monitoring of such
laws, the High Courts have to shoulder greater
responsibilities in tackling such issues which arise or
pertain to the geographical areas within their
respective States....
10.7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the above case, has also
reminded the duty of the High Court to control the degradation of the
environment and to stop illegal activities with great responsibilities to
ensure the proper implementation of the environmental laws, as per the
provision of the Act.
10.8. As per the above data, totally 63,542 vehicles were involved
in the illegal mining and transportation of the minerals. Only against 2218
vehicles, confiscation proceedings were initiated and confiscation
proceedings were completed only in 385 cases. Hence, this Court feels that
this case is an extraordinary situation and the same is required to be dealt
with the special measure by adopting the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 2012(1)SCC10[ Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab]:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
50.Extraordinary situations demand
extraordinary remedies. While dealing with an
unprecedented case, the Court has to innovate the law
and may also pass an unconventional order keeping
in mind that an extraordinary fact situation requires
extraordinary measures. In B.P. Achala Anand v. S.
Appi Reddy [(2005) 3 SCC 313 : this Court observed :
(SCC p. 318, para 1)
“1. Unusual fact situation posing issues for
resolution is an opportunity for innovation. Law, as
administered by courts, transforms into justice.”
Thus, it is evident that while deciding the
case, the court has to bear in mind the peculiar facts,
if so exist, in a given case.
11.Therefore, the special measure, in the present situation, is to
speed up the initiation and completion of the confiscation proceedings. As
per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as stated supra, reported in
1996 5 SCC 281, this Court is necessitated to pass the following directions
for the effective implementation of the confiscation proceedings in addition
to allowing the revision with the conditions stated in the conclusion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
paragraph:
11.1.As mandated Under section 21 (4-A) of the MMDR Act, the
Director General of Police, hereby is directed to issue the suitable
instruction to all the investigating officer of the pending cases of 63,542 to
file a petition before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge of
each Districts, to initiate the confiscation proceedings of the vehicles seized
for the offence of illegal mining and transportation, within a period of 30
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11.2.The Director General of Police is further directed to issue
suitable instructions to all the investigating officers, in future to initiate the
confiscation proceedings of the vehicles before the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge of the District concerned, within a period of 30
days from the date of registration of FIR.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.3.The learned Principal District and Session Judge, upon
receiving such application, shall treat the petition as a criminal
miscellaneous petition, assign number and dispose the confiscation
proceedings expeditiously not later than six months from the date of the
petition.
12.Suggestion to the Government
Section 21 (4-A) is incorporated in the year 2015. To implement the
said provisions, the Government is duty bound to constitute new Court to
conduct the criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings. Both are
essential to avoid the rampant increase of the cases of the illegal mining and
transportation and to prevent the spontaneous damages to the environment.
As stated above, from the year 2015 to May 2023, total number of cases
registered for illegal mining and transportation is 59,105 and 63,542 number
of vehicles are seized. It is the timely requirement to complete the trial and
confiscation proceedings. Now, the learned Principal District and Session
Judge, of the District concerned, assumes the jurisdiction. Already, the
Principal District and Sessions Court is accumulated with the number of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cases apart from the administrative work. It is not only the duty of the
Government to bring the Act to curb the illegal mining and transportation
and the Government is also duty bound to implement the provisions. Hence,
for an effective implementation of the provisions of the Act, an earnest
effort is required from all the stake holders to constitute special courts to
deal with the cases filed under Mines and Minerals Act. Hence this court
suggests the Government to set up special courts in all districts to deal with
the cases filed under the Mines and Minerals Act.
13.It is a well settled principle that when the confiscation
proceeding is initiated, the petition under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., to seek
interim custody is not maintainable. The same was fortified in the following
judgments:
(i) State of M.P. v. Uday Singh reported in 2020 12 SCC 733, held
as follows:
23.Subsequently in 2004 in Sujit Kumar Rana
[State of W.B.v. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC
129 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 984] another two-Judge Bench
of this Court dealt with the applicability of Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
482 CrPC for quashing of proceedings for
confiscation of forest produce under the provisions of
the Forest Act, 1927, as amended in relation to the
State amendments to inter alia, confer a power of
seizure and confiscation and to enact a bar of
jurisdiction of other courts and tribunals
notwithstanding anything contained in CrPC. This
Court held : (SCC p. 139, para 31)
“31. … Once, however, a confiscation
proceeding is initiated; in terms of Section 59-G of the
Act, the jurisdiction of the criminal court in this
behalf stands excluded. The criminal court although
indisputably has the jurisdiction to deal with the
property which is the subject-matter of offence in
terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure but once a confiscation proceeding is
initiated, the said power cannot be exercised by the
Magistrate.”
Once the criminal court had no power to
deal with the property seized under the Act, the High
Court was held to have no jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC to quash proceedings for confiscation of
forest produce.
In Crl.R.C.No.755 of 2021, after considering the provisions and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the impact of the illegal mining, this Court has categorically held that the
provision of Section 451 of Cr.P.C., is not applicable, when the confiscation
proceedings is initiated under Section 21(4-A) of the MMDR Act. The
relevant portion of the order is as follows:
19. It is seen that in the instant cases, the data
produced by the learned Public Prosecutor shows that
in all the cases, confiscation proceedings had already
been initiated. Therefore, this court is of the view that in
the interest of justice, it would suffice if a direction is
given for conclusion of the confiscation proceedings
within a time frame. Accordingly, while rejecting the
plea for the release of the vehicles in question, it is
hereby ordered that the confiscation proceedings shall
be concluded within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order and the
petitioners/owners of the vehicles shall co-operate for
conclusion of the confiscation proceedings without
protracting any longer.
From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2020 12 SCC 733
as well as by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.755 of 2021, it is clear that in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
absence of the initiation of the confiscation proceedings, the petition under
Section 451 Cr.P.C., to seek interim custody of the vehicle, etc., is
maintainable. In case, confiscation proceedings has been initiated the
petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable.
14.In all the above cases, the investigating agency as well as the
competent authority under the MMDR Act, has not initiated confiscation
proceedings against the vehicle involved in illegal transportation of sand
and other minerals. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow these criminal
revision cases with the above directions. Accordingly, the above revisions
are allowed with the following conditions are imposed on the petitioners to
release their respective vehicles:
14.1.This Court hereby directs to release the vehicle, the petitioners
shall a bond to the value of the vehicle mentioned in the insurance
certificate existed on the date of occurrence and the petitioners shall deposit
a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the credit of the respective crime numbers and on
such deposit, the Courts below shall redeposit the same in any one of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
nationalized bank in the interest bearing account.
(ii) The petitioner shall file an affidavit with specific undertaking
that they shall not involve in any illegal mining or any other offence and
vehicle also will not be used in the illegal mining or any other offence.
(iii) The photograph of the vehicles is to be taken properly and the
petitioners shall produce their vehicles as and when required by the Courts
below.
(iv) The petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to the
account to be opened by the Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras
High Court, Madurai, in the Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai, as
indicated in the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.(MD).No.23683 of 2023.
(v) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle till the disposal of
confiscation proceeding
(vi) The investigating agency shall initiate the confiscation
proceedings within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order before the Courts below and the Courts below shall dispose the
same within a period of six months thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(vii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial Court to complete
the confiscation proceedings.
15. List this case on 30.11.2023, for "reporting compliance".
11.10.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
sbn
Note: Issue order Copy on 13.10.2023
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Chennai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
3.The Registrar Judicial,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
Crl.RC(MD).Nos.470, 551, 671, 749, 756, 870, 878, 890, 894, 909, 911,
958, 1021, 1035, 1045, 1049 of 2023
11.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
