Md. Arman Khan vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 9 March, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                  CRLREV No.146 of 2026
  (In the matter of an application under Section 397 read with
   Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 read with
              Section 442 of the BNSS Act, 2023)

  Md. Arman Khan
                                      ....           Petitioner
                           -versus-

  State of Odisha                     ....       Opposite Party



  For Petitioner           :          Mr. S. Das, Advocate


  For Opposite Party       :          Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA


       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

       DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 09.03.2026

V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the state.

2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil, Keonjhar in CMC No.225 of 2025 arising out of 2(C)CC Case No.105 of 2025, whereby the prayer of the Petitioner for release of his vehicle, namely Truck bearing Regd. No. OD-16E- 2065 having its Chassis No.MAT541109J1D 12464 and Engine No.1SB5.9B4S180T181D63685757, stated

to be involved in an offence under Section 21 of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) read with Rule 12(1) of the Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling & Illegal Mining And Regulation of Possession, Storage, Trading and Transportation) Rules, 2007 (OMPTS Rules), was rejected.

3. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of the said vehicle, which was seized by the Mining Officials of the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda Circle, on the allegation of its involvement in the commission of an offence under Section 21 of the MMDR Act read with Rule 12(1) of the OMPTS Rules.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Das, assails the impugned order on two counts: first, that the finding of the learned Court to the effect that, since confiscation proceedings have been initiated and the vehicle itself constitutes "evidence", as such the same cannot be released, is unsustainable; and second, that in view of the provisions contained in the MMDR Act, being a Central legislation, confiscation proceedings under the OMPTS Act could not have been initiated.

5. It is apt to note that the ground relating to maintainability of the proceedings under the OMPTS Rules was admittedly not raised before the Court in seisin. However, since it is a question of law, the same is permitted to be urged before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer and states that there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. To fortify his submission that proceedings under the OMPTS Rules could not have been instituted, learned counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the judgments of this Court in Tafzil Sarwar vs. The Dy. Director, Mines Joda Circle1 and Hiranmaya Das vs. State of Orissa2 as well as M/s. Jai Durga Iron Pvt. Ltd. vs. Superintendent of Police, Sundergarh and Anr3.

7-A. On a perspicuous analysis of the judgments cited above, this Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, in view of the MMDR Rules being a Central legislation, confiscation proceedings could not have been initiated.

Relevant extract of the judgments is culled out hereunder:

In the case of Tafzil Sarwar(supra)1, this Court observed thus;

""xxx xxx xxx

8. ......when the superior legislation specifically empowers a Court for disposal of the property seized under Section 21(4) of the Act, the Rule made by the State Government for disposal of

1 Tafzil Sarwar v. Dy. Director, Mines, 2015 SCC OnLine Ori 684 2 Hiranmaya Das v. State of Orissa, 2017 SCC OnLine Ori 44 3 M/s. Jai Durga Iron (P) Ltd. v. Superintendent of Police, Sundergarh, (2006) 34 OCR 655

such property authorizing another authority besides the Court competent, is inoperative... and the State Government in its rule making power under Section 23C of the MMDR Act could not have authorized any other authority for confiscation of the same.

"xxx xxx xxx"

This Court in the case of Hiranmaya Das(supra)2 held thus;

"xxx xxx xxx

8. .......Since confiscation of any property seized under sub-section (4) of section 21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereafter '1957 Act') has to be made by an order of the Court competent to take cognizance of offence as per sub-section 4-A of the said section 21 of 1957 Act and such Court is also empowered to take a decision in the matter of release of the seized property in accordance with law...

xxx xxx xxx"

This Court in the case of M/s. Jai Durga Iron Pvt. Ltd.3 in paragraphs-12 and 13 has held as follows:

"12. From the above, it is clear that the State Act legislated by the State Legislature being in relation to Entry 23 of List-Il in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, which is with regard to Regulation of Mines and Minerals Development, the same is subject to the provisions of List-1 with respect to Regulation and Development under the control of the Union. Thus, the above State Act was in force as no similar provisions were included in the M.M. (D.&R.) Act which is a Central legislation under Entry 54 of List-I of the 7th Schedule. In view of the declaration made in

Section 2 of the M.M.(D&R) Act, the moment similar provisions as contemplated in the State Act were provided for in the M.M.(D&R) Act by way of amendment with effect from 18.12.1999, the said provisions in the State Act became inoperative being occupied by the central legislation.

13. In view of the above amendment brought to the M.M.(D&R) Act by the central legislation with effect from 18.12.1999, in our considered view, the provisions of Section 12 of the M.M.(D&R) Act with regard to penalty which can be imposed on a person who fails to comply with or contravene any of the provisions of the State Act and the provisions of Section 16 of the State Act with regard to seizure of property liable to be confiscated and prosecution for such offences under Section 12 of the State Act can no longer be made applicable to minerals which are covered in the M.M.(D.&R) Act."

However, since such aspect need not be gone into for adjudicating the grievance of non-release of the vehicle, this Court keeps the said question open for consideration, in the factual matrix of the case at hand.

8. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the sole ground on which the prayer for release of the vehicle was rejected is the initiation of confiscation proceedings.

9. The law is no longer res integra regarding release of vehicles involved in offences. In this context, respectful reference may be made to the

case of Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam4 , as well as the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vrs. State of Gujarat5 which has stood the test of time and has also been reiterated in the case of Bishwajit Dey(supra)4.

For convenience of ready reference, the relevant excerpt of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai(supra)5 is culled out hereunder;

"xxx xxx xxx

11. With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 CrPC at the earliest.

                        xxx             xxx              xxx"

                The       relevant           paragraph         of       Bishwajit

Dey(supra)4 is extracted hereunder;

"xxx xxx xxx

32. Undoubtedly, the vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence that may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution's case, yet the said requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the vehicle in interim on superdari like videography and still photographs to be authenticated by the investigating officer, owner of the vehicle and

Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vrs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283

accused by signing the said inventory as well as restriction on sale/transfer of the vehicle.

xxx xxx xxx"

10. On the touchstone of law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by exposing the vehicle to the vagaries of nature and, accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 passed in CMC No.225 of 2025 by the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil, Keonjhar is set aside.

The vehicle in question shall be released in favour of the Petitioner on his establishing ownership thereof, subject to such other stipulations as may be imposed by the learned Trial Court.

11. Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 9th March, 2026/Soumya

Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Mar-2026 09:45:51