Sarojini Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Anr. ........ Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2987 Ori

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2987 Ori
Judgement Date : 30 March, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Sarojini Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Anr. ........ Opposite ... on 30 March, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                   CRLMC No. 265 of 2026

                             Sarojini Pradhan                             ........   Petitioner(s)
                                                                          Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Adv.

                                                         -Versus-
                             State of Odisha & Anr.                 ........ Opposite Party(s)
                                                                         Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
                                     CORAM:
                                     DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                                                     ORDER

30.03.2026 Order No.

02.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioner claiming herself to be the

registered owner of the vehicle in question bearing registration

No.OD-25-M-0950 which is detained due to some unlawful

activities, has sought for a direction from this Court to the Mining

Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Minor Mineral,

Nayagarh/Opposite Party No.4 for releasing the said vehicle.

3. Heard.

4. The background facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the

bonafide owner of the tractor with attached compressor bearing

Registration No.OD-25-M-0950 having Chassis No.DZYSR

1111914S3 and Engine No.3100ELI1411105620FB. The said tractor

was seized by the Junior Mining Officer, Nayagarh on 30.05.2025

at the time illegal drilling at Ghana Barabudi, Kantilo from the

possession of the driver under Rule-51(l)(ii) of the OMMC Rule,

2016 and has been kept inside the Kantilo Out Post campus under

Khandapada P.S. As per the order dated 04.08.2025 passed in

CRLMP No.893 of 2025, the petitioner filed an application for

interim release of the vehicle before the J.M.F.C., Khandapada,

which was rejected on 08.09.2025.

5. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the

compounding of offence upon payment of penalty is an option to

be discharged by the party which is voluntary act. In the event,

the party does not intend to compound the offence, the relevant

provision mandates that the authority should report to the

Magistrate concerned to proceed with the trial upon a

prosecution. Consequently, the Petitioner herein did not opt for

compounding of offence and instead moved the court of learned

JMFC for release of the vehicle under Section 438 BNSS

corresponding to Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. The learned court in

CMC No.73 of 2025 vide order dated 08.09.2025 declined to

release the vehicle on the ground that absence of any intimation

from the seizing officer and the offences being not spelt out by

the Mining Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Minor Mineral,

Nayagarh does not empower the court to pass order for release of

the vehicle. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned

Magistrate, the Petitioner challenged it before the learned

Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Crl. Rev. No.14 of 2025. The learned

Sessions Judge, Nayagarh vide its order dated 20.06.2025

confirmed the impugned order of the learned JMFC. The

operative part of the impugned order reads as under :

"Thus, from the aforesaid discussion of the facts and circumstance of the case at hand in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court, it is found at the offence report or the prosecution report in connection with the alleged seizure of truck is essential to invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to deal with the matter of interim release of the vehicle un/s.503 of the BNSS, 2023 corresponding to Sec.457 of the Cr.P.C. Admittedly, in this case no offence report or prosecution report in respect of commission of any offence has been made or reported or pending before the Id. J.M.F.C., Khandapada. In this case the factum of seizure has been brought to the notice of the Magistrate by the petitioner. The seizing officer or the prosecuting agency has not reported the seizure as per law. Therefore, even if the petitioner brought to the notice of the concerned Magistrate regarding seizure of the tractor by the Mining Officer, the concerned Magistrate cannot consider release of the tractor exercising jurisdiction u/s.503 of the BNSS, 2023 in as much as no prosecution or offence report is pending or reported to the Magistrate and the seizure of the tractor has not been reported therein.

In such view of the matter, it is found that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the ld. J.M.F.C., Khandapada and as such it needs no interference. Hence, ordered."

6. It is pertinent to mention that the relevant provision requires the

Mining Officer in the event the Petitioner does not opt to

compound the offence ought to have reported to the jurisdictional

Magistrate enabling the court to exercise its jurisdiction under

Section 503 BNSS. As seen from the impugned order and

submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the

authority, i.e., the Mining Officer-cum-Competent Authority,

Minor Mineral, Nayagarh is sitting over the matter and has not

reported to the Magistrate.

7. While this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the

order impugned, it is directed that the Opposite Party No.4 i.e.

Mining Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Minor Mineral,