Rajasthan High Court
Nathu Singh S/O Kishan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5912/2020
Nathu Singh S/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Badolaas
Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
AND
Other similar matters as per Schedule-A appended to this
order
This Order shall govern all the cases the particulars of
which have been given in Schedule-A appended to this
order.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal, Mr. Naveen
Verma, Mr. Deepak Khandelwal, Mr.
Praveen Kumar Jain, Mr. Narendra
Singh Shekhawat, Mr. Abdul Kalam
Khan, Mr. Amit Ratnawat, Mr. Ajeet
Singh Devanda, Mr. Dushyant Jain,
Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma, Mr. Atul
Kumar Jain, Mr. Raj Kumar Kasana,
Mr. Vijendra Yadav, Mr. Asgar Khan,
Mr. Deepak Kumar Sharma, Mr. Aditya
Mishra,Mr. Arvind Sharma, Mr. Amit
Dadhich, Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Mr. D.D.
Khandelwal, Mr. Madhvendra Sharma,
Mr. Brijesh Kumar Bhardwaj,
Mr. Manish K Sharma, Mr. Moti Lal
Sharma, Mr. Abhi Goyal, Mr. Arpit
Srivastava, Mr. Anirudh Singh
Shekhawat, Mr. Sandeep Jain,
Mr. Dinesh Pareek, Mr. Bharat Yadav,
Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun, Mr. R.K.
Gauttam, Mr. Rajendra Sharma,
Mr. Yogesh Singhal, Mr. Vikas Kabra,
Mr. Bharat Raj Yogi, Mr. Sandeep
Kumar Maheshwari, Mr. Brahm Singh
Gurjar, Mr. Mohar Pal Meena,
Mr. Ashindra Gautam
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment / Order
(2 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
12/01/2021
1. All these petitions relate to the prayer for release of
tractors and trolleys, which have been seized by the Police
Authorities/Mining Authorities/Forest Officials for various
reasons including carrying "bazri", by way of illegal mining in
Rajasthan and selling out the same etc.
2. All these petitions have been filed against the order
passed by the concerned Magistrate whereby application
under Section 451 & 457 Cr.P.C for releasing of tractor and
trolley was rejected and therefore, the same are being heard
together.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the
judgment passed by this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No. 2723/2019 (Asharam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan &
connected misc. petitions) decided by common order dated
3.2.2020.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the order
passed subsequently by this court in S. B. Criminal Misc.
(Petition) NO.2687/2020 (Nandlal Vs. State of Rajasthan)
decided on 1.10.2020 to submit that vehicle should be
released.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also rely upon the
judgment passed in the case of Nathulal Vs. State of
Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2755/2020)
decided on 1.10.2020, which also took into consideration the
interim order passed in PIL "Khem Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan", (D.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.4239/2019) as
well as judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of
(3 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat: (2002)
10 SCC 283.
6. The Mining Officer of the rank of Mining Engineer (Writ),
Jaipur, who is present in court, opposed these petitions and
submitted that decision has been taken by Mining
Department to challenge the order passed in Asharam
(supra) before the Supreme Court by filing of SLP. It is also
stated that the Mining Department on the basis of judgment
passed by Coordinate Bench in the case of Ganga Ram Vs.
State (S.B. Criminal Misc.(Petition) No.1363/2020) at
Principal Seat, Jodhpur decided on 2.9.2020 has received
opinion from the Additional Government Counsel at Jodhpur
to cite the said judgment before the concerned lower Court
for denial of release of the vehicle.
7. I have considered the submissions and have gone
through the judgments which have been cited at bar.
8. At the outset, this court finds that in Ganga Ram Vs.
State (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1363/2020),
decided by Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur on
2.9.2020, the judgment of Asharam (supra) was not cited
and was not considered. The judgment passed by the
Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors.
(supra) was also not considered and the judgments passed in
Harun Versus State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.76/2014), decided on 23rd July, 2015 and
Laxman Versus State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.60/2018) were also not brought to the notice
of the Court.
(4 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
9. This court further finds that the interim order passed in
the case of Khem Singh (supra) and the order passed by
NGT have been considered in Gangaram (supra) and
directions have been issued that the petitioners therein would
be required to deposit the amount determined by Mining
Engineer and after the said amount being determined, the
vehicle has been directed to be released.
10. In Asharam's case judgment (authored by me), I had
an occasion to examine the dispute and consider the law laid
down by the Supreme Court with regard to release of vehicle
under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. The provisions of Motor
Vehicle Act with regard to permits as well as the conditions
for carriage permit were also examined.
11. This court also examined the power of suspension of
permits. That apart, the judgment passed in Harun (supra)
was considered by this court which took into consideration
the offence committed by the vehicle relating to the
Rajasthan Forest Act. In another case of Laxman (supra),
the Division Bench considered the aspect regarding confiscation by
the Mining Department where the reference was made to the
Division Bench as to in what circumstances the vehicle should not
be released and it was held that where the confiscation
proceedings have already been conducted, the power would not lie
with the Magistrate to release the vehicle. The court thereafter
passed direction for releasing of the tractor with trolley laying
down certain conditions.
12. The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 laid
down the provisions relating to offenses, penalties and prosecution
(5 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
under Chapter 10. Rule 54(5) & (6) of the Rules, deserve to be
quoted, which read as under:
"54. Illegal mining, transportation and storage of
minerals:-
(1) ....
(2) ....
(3) ......
(4) .....
(5) Whenever any person, without a lawful authority, raises
any mineral from any land other than under any mineral
concession or any other permission and for that purpose
bring on the land any tool, equipment, vehicle or other
thing, such tool, equipment, vehicle etc. mineral, if any,
may be seized by the authorities mentioned in sub-rule (4)
who shall give a receipt to the person from whose
possession the property or mineral is seized:
Provided that every officer seizing any property or mineral
under this rule may handover the property or mineral so
seized to the nearest police station or police chauki.
Provided further that the seized vehicle, equipment or
mineral may be released after deposition of cost of mineral
along with the compound fees as specified in sub-rule (3).
Provided also that where mineral so raised has already been
dispatched or consumed, the authorities mentioned in sub-
rule (3) shall recover cost of mineral along with the
compound fees as specified in sub-rule (3).
Provided also that where vehicle, equipment or mineral so
seized is not released, the officer seizing the property or
mineral shall make a report of such seizure within seventy
two hours to his superior officer and to the Magistrate
having jurisdiction.
(6) All property seized under this rule shall be liable to be
confiscated by an order of Magistrate if the amount equal to
ten times of royalty in lieu of cost of mineral, rent, royalty,
compensation for environmental degradation and tax
chargeable on the land occupied without lawful authority,
etc. is not paid by the trespasser within a period of three
months from the date of commission of such offence or
when the recoveries are not affected by that time:
(6 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
Provided that on payment of these dues within the said
period of three months, all properties seized shall be
ordered to be released and shall be handed over to the
trespasser or the owner of the property."
13. On the basis of aforesaid provisions, the Officer i.e. the
Mining Engineer (Writ) submits that the power lies with the Mining
Engineer to seize the vehicle.
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
specifically submitted that in none of the case, the Mining
Department has passed order either under Rule 54(5) or under
Rule 54(6) of the Rules, 2017 that is to say that neither any
penalty has been imposed nor the confiscation proceedings have
been undertaken.
15. The Mining Engineer (Writ), who is present in person in
court, does not dispute with regard to the said fact of the vehicle
having not been confiscation as yet.
16. In the case of Nathulal (supra), this court had occasion to
again examine this aspect and in the case of Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai & Ors. (supra), this court while relying upon
the judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. (supra)
directed for release of the vehicle.
17. This court also notices that different view had been taken by
the Coordinate Bench in Naval Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
(S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2670/2020), decided on 3.9.2020,
which did not notice the law laid down by this court in Asharam
(supra) as well as by the Supreme Court supra and therefore,
(7 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
judgment in Naval Singh (supra) was treated as per-incuriam in
Nathulal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra).
18. This court finds that the observations made in Khem Singh
(supra) were of interregnum in nature and the law laid down by
Supreme Court earlier was not brought to its notice. The
provisions for compounding is also after confiscation. In none of
the cases herein, the provisions under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 have been pressed by the
Mining Department. Till date, neither penalty has been imposed
nor confiscation has been done.
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai & Ors. (supra) has examined the law laid down and the
conditions with regard to release of different goods/vehicle in
different circumstances as under:-
"8. The question of proper custody of the seized
article is raised in number of matters. In Basavva Kom
Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore: (1977) 4 SCC
358 this Court dealt with a case where the seized
articles were not available for being returned to the
complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments
were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it
was found missing, the question was with regard to
payment of those articles. In that context, the Court
observed as under:-
"4. The object and scheme of the various
provisions of the Code appear to be that where the
property which has been the subject-matter of an
offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be
retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for
any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As
the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a
clear entrustment of the property to a Government
servant, the idea is that the property should be restored
to the original owner after the necessity to retain its
(8 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages
when the property may be returned to the owner. In
the first place it may be returned during any inquire or
trial. This may particularly be necessary where the
property concerned is subject to speedy or natural
decay. There may be other compelling reasons also
which may justify the disposal of the property to the
owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High
Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing
that one of the essential requirements of the Code is
that the articles concerned must be produced before the
Court or should be in its custody. The object of the
Code seems to be that any property which is in the
control of the Court either directly or indirectly should
be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order
should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In
a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct
control of the Court and has to take orders from it at
every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense,
therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the
actions of the police officers in every case where it has
taken cognizance."
9. The Court further observed that where the
property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no
prima facie defence made out that the State or its
officers had taken due care and caution to protect the
property, the Magistrate may, in an appropriate case,
where the ends of justice so require, order payment of
the value of the property.
10. To avoid a situation, in our view, powers under
Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly and
at the earliest.
17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of
no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police
stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to
pass appropriate orders immediately by taking
appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for
return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of
time. This can be done pending hearing of applications
for return of such vehicles.
21. However, these powers are to be exercised by
the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the
concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for
seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are
(9 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
properly and promptly exercised and articles are not
kept for a long time at the police station, in any case,
for not more than fifteen days to one month. This
object can also be achieved if there is proper
supervision by the Registry of the concerned High
Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court
with regard to such articles are implemented properly.
20. In Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd.:
(2001) 6 SCC 356, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"19. In Mamleshwar Prasad and Another vs.
Kanhaiya Lal reflecting on the principle of judgment
per incuriam, in paras 7 & 8, this Court had stated
thus:-
"7. Certainty of the law, consistency of rulings and
comity of courts - all flowering from the same
principle - converge to the conclusion that a decision
once rendered must later bind like cases. We do not
intend to detract from the rule that, in exceptional
instances, where by obvious inadvertence or
oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory
provision or obligatory authority running counter to
the reasoning and result reached, it may not have
the sway of binding precedents. It should be a
glaring case, an obtrusive omission. No such
situation presents itself here and we do not embark
on the principle of judgment per incuriam.
8. Finally it remains to be noticed that a prior
decision of this Court on identical facts and law binds
the Court on the same points in a later case. Here we
have a decision admittedly rendered on facts and
law, indistinguishably identical, and that ruling must
bind.
20.This Court in A.R.Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak &
Another (1998 (2) SCC 602), in para 42 has quoted
the observations of Lord Goddard in Moore vs.
Hewwit (1947) 2 All.ER 270 and Penny vs. Nicholas
(1950) 2 All.ER 89 to the following effect:-
"Per incuriam are those decisions given in ignorance
or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory
provision or of some authority binding on the court
concerned, so that in such cases some part of the
decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is
(10 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
based, is found, on that account to be demonstrably
wrong..."
21.This Court in State of U.P. & Another vs.
Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. & Another
MANU/SC/0616/1991:1993(41)ECC326 : 1993 (41)
ECC3 26 in para 40 has observed thus :-
"40. 'Incuria' literally means 'carelessness'. In
practice per incuriam appears to mean per
ignoratium. English courts have developed this
principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The
'quotable in law' is avoided and ignored if it is
rendered, 'in ignoratium of a statute or other binding
authority'. (Young v. Bristol aeroplane co. Ltd)..."
22. The two judgments (1) Punjab Land
Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd.,
Chandigarh vs. President Officer, Labour Court,
Chandigarh and Others MANU/SC/0479/1990 :
(1990)IILLJ70SC : (1990)IILLJ70SC and (2) State of
U.P. and Another vs. Synthetics and chemicals Ltd.
and Another MANU/SC/0616/1991 :
1993(41)ECC326 : 1993(41)ECC326 were cited in
support of the argument. Attention was drawn to
paras 40, 41 and 43 in the first judgment and paras
39 and 40 in the second judgment. In these two
judgments no view contrary to the views expressed
in the aforesaid judgments touching the principle of
judgment per incuriam is taken.
23. A prior decision of this court on identical facts
and law binds the Court on the same points of law in
a latter case. This is not an exceptional case by
inadvertence or oversight of any judgment or
statutory provisions running counter to the reason
and result reached. Unless it is a glaring case of
obtrusive omission, it is not desirable to depend on
the principle of judgment 'per incuriam'. It is also not
shown that some part of the decision based on a
reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, hence the
principle of per incuriam cannot be applied."
21. In Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi:
(2010) 9 SCC 385, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"37. It must be remembered that in these proceedings,
the pleas raised by the DTC and MCD before the ARC as
(11 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
well as the ARCT were identical. The order passed by the
ARCT has been upheld by a coordinate bench of the High
Court. The RCSA No: 17/2001 filed by MCD on identical
grounds was thus dismissed by a subsequent coordinate
bench. That was indeed in conformity with the high
traditions, procedures and practices established by the
courts to maintain judicial discipline and decorum. The
underlying principle being, to avoid conflicting views taken
by coordinate benches of the same court. Except in
compelling circumstances, such as where the order of the
earlier bench can be said to be per incuriam , in that it is
passed in ignorance of an earlier binding
precedent/statutory or constitutional provision, the
subsequent bench would follow the earlier coordinate
bench."
22. According to Blacks' Law Dictionary (Edition) per-incuriam
means through inadvertence. The doctrine of per-incuriam is that
a decision is to be treated as given per-incuriam when it is given
in ignorance of the terms of statute or of a rule having statutory
force or a binding precedent.
23. Lord Goddard, in Huddersfield Police Authority Vs. Watson:
27 (1947) 2 All ER 193 observed "where a case or statute has not
been brought to the Court's attention and the Court gave the
decision in ignorance or forgetfulness of the existence of the case
or statute, it would be a decision rendered in per-incuriam".
24. In the opinion of this court, the view taken by the Supreme
Court requires to be considered and followed and any judgment,
which did not notice the law laid down by the Supreme Court or
the provisions of law, has to be treated as per-incuriam. The
provision of Section 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. are unambiguous and clear
and it would be useful to quote them as under:-
451. Order for custody and disposal of property
pending trial in certain cases.
(12 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
When any property is produced before any Criminal Court
during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such
order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such
property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial,
and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural
decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court
may, after recording such evidence as it thinks
necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," property"
includes-
(a) property of any kind or document which is produced
before the Court or which is in its custody,
(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to
have been committed or which appears to have been
used for the commission of any offence.
457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.
(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police
officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of
this Code, and such property is not produced before a
Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate
may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the
disposal of such property or the delivery of such property
to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if
such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the
custody and production of such property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate
may order the property to be delivered to him on such
conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such
person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and
shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the
articles of which such property consists, and requiring
any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear
before him and establish his claim within six months from
the date of such proclamation.
25. Unless the respondents namely; Mining Authorities or the
State have confiscated the goods/vehicle etc. till that stage, the
vehicle can be released by the concerned Magistrate laying down
the conditions under Sections 457 Cr.P.C. The prime reason is that
goods or vehicle, which have been seized should not go waste or
rusted. Of course, the condition of bond can always be imposed as
(13 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
one of the conditions as directed by this court in the case of
Asharam (supra) for the purpose.
26. Keeping in view the law as noticed above and in view of the
fact that there is no confiscation having done for illegal mining as
on the date and the imposition of fine or penalty would be on the
person (owner) and not on the vehicle, this court is inclined to
follow its earlier view taken in Asharam's case, which reads as
under:-
"11. In the aforesaid background, this Court finds
that while it is true that a vehicle should not be
allowed to get rusted in Police Station and the same
ought to be released for its better maintenance and
proper use. Several suggestions were given out by
the Officers of the Transport Department as well as
by the Mining Department for laying down the
conditions before release of the seized tractors,
trolleys and vehicles being used for illegal mining
activities.
12. In Harun Versus State of Rajasthan: D.B. Criminal
Misc. Petition No.76/2014 decided on 23.7.2015 along
with connected matters by the Division Bench of this
Court wherein it has been held that if a vehicle is
found to be involved in committing violation of the
Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and carrying forest
produce, the same cannot be released during the
pendency of trial on supurdgi to the registered owner
of the vehicle, if proceedings of confiscation have
already been initiated. Relying upon the law laid down
in Harun (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Shoukat Khan Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B.
Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.6307/2016, decided on
22.2.2017 has held that supurdginama can be given,
if proceedings for confiscation have been initiated. In
Laxman Versus State of Rajasthan: D.B. Criminal
Misc. Petition No.60/2018 decided on 6.4.2018 along
with connected matters by the Division Bench where
a reference was made to the Division Bench on
account of different opinion relating to the power of
release of vehicles wherein the Division Bench has
held as under:
(14 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
"Most of the judgments cited by learned counsel
appearing from the side of the petitioners have ruled
in favour of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to
release the vehicles under the provisions of Section
451 and/or 457 of the Cr.P.C. A discordant note has
however been sounded by Single Bench judgment in
Ramswaroop's case, which was later followed in Mala
Ram's, supra. These judgments, in view of the
analysis of law which we have made herein-above, do
not lay down correct law. In fact, the same Single
Judge, who delivered the judgment in Ramswaroop's
case on 28.08.2015, in his earlier judgment dated
26.10.2012 in Muknaram Vs. State of Rajasthan -
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3285/2012, had held
that in a case in which offence has already been
compounded by the competent authority and an
amount has been imposed as compounding fees and
the same has not been paid or deposited by the
person concerned, for the purpose of recovery or
realization of the same, a condition can be imposed
by the Court while ordering release of the vehicle to
pay or deposit the same and the Court can refuse to
release the seized vehicle even temporarily under
Section 457 Cr.P.C., if such deposit is not made. In
view of the above discussion, the referred questions
are answered in the terms that once the Officer of the
Mining Department, who seized the vehicle, has
reported such seizure to his Superior Officer and to
the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease to
have the power to release the vehicle, and in that
event, the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be
empowered to release such vehicle, with or without
the condition of deposit of compounding fee."
In view thereof, the power is vested with the
concerned Magistrate for release of seized vehicle.
13. Keeping in view the above, as this Court notices
that in none of the cases, the Mining Department has
not initiated the confiscation proceedings, it was
submitted that compounding fee must be charged
from the petitioners before release of the vehicle.
However, this Court is of the view that the
compounding fee can only be charged, if it is
adjudicated that the concerned vehicle was involved
in the illegal activities, which can only be when trial is
completed. A presumption in this regard cannot be
taken at the present stage.
(15 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
14. In view thereof, the impugned orders passed by
the Courts below dated 30.3.2019, 21.10.2019,
3.10.2019, 10.10.2019, 8.11.2019, 25.4.2019 and
8.4.2019 in each of the case shall stand set aside and
this Court directs as under:
a) The concerned Police Station shall release the
tractor and trolley to the person, who is the
registered owner of the vehicle alone.
b) The release of the tractor and trolley shall be
subject to the condition that the concerned owner
shall get both the tractor and the trolley registered
with the transport authorities and also obtain due
permit within a period of one month from the date of
release and deposit the copy with the concerned
Police Station.
c) A personal security of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court to
which the concerned Police Station is attached, shall
be submitted for the purpose of release of the vehicle.
d) The petitioners shall keep the vehicle so released
intact and shall not change its identification. The
petitioners shall produce the vehicle as and when trial
Court requires the same for proposed identification of
the case property.
e) The petitioners shall furnish the photographs of the
vehicle showing its number and colour etc.
f). At the time of release, the petitioners shall also
give an undertaking to the effect that vehicle shall not
be used for any illegal purpose and if so found, the
concerned owner shall be personally liable."
27. It is noticed that the on coming "Rabi" crop season is
approaching and the farmers would require their tractors and
trolleys for the said purpose, therefore taking into consideration
the above, keeping the vehicles at Police Station would render
them go waste.
(16 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
28. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and the orders
passed by the Court below are quashed and set aside. The
tractor and trolley as mentioned in these petitions as per
Schedule-A annexed to this order shall be released as per
aforesaid conditions laid down herein-above in Para 14(a) to (f)
of Asharam's case (supra).
29. However, it is made clear that if vehicle(s) has been
confiscated under the relevant provisions of the Act, then said
vehicle(s) shall not be released by the concerned Magistrate.
Keeping in view of law laid down in the case of Laxman Versus
State of Rajasthan: DB Criminal Misc. Petition No.60/2018
decided on 6.4.2018.
30. Before parting with the case, this Court pains to observe
that in spite of several judgments rendered by the High Court
and laying down finally the law relating to release of vehicles,
still the Judicial Magistrates are not following the judgments
passed by this Court and are continuously and adamantly
rejecting the applications citing that 'Bajri' smuggling has been
banned by the Supreme Court. It needs to be reminded that
judgment passed by the High Court is required to be strictly
followed and the same cannot be ignored by feigning ignorance
or not having knowledge about the judgment. More than 1,000
cases have come up before this Court where this Court had to
release vehicles because of the judgment passed in the case of
Julfi Singh Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.397/2020 being not followed by the concerned
Magistrates and again now hundreds of cases are coming up on
the same issue.
(17 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
31. It is made clear that on a question of law if the High Court has
already passed a judgment and settled the issue, the same has to
be necessarily followed by all Subordinate Courts without any
demur or by without raising any further questions and
unnecessarily litigation should be avoided. It is therefore enjoined
upon the District Judges concerned to issue an advisory
accordingly and direct Subordinate Courts to maintain judicial
discipline. Any departure would amount to disobedience and
judicial indiscipline.
32. A Copy of this order shall be sent by the Registry to all the
District Judges who shall pass necessary directions to the
Subordinate Courts in order to prevent unnecessary litigation
swelling up in the High Court.
33. All pending applications also stand disposed off.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
NITIN /
(18 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
SCHEDULE - "A"
Item No. in
Vehicle Registration
Sr. No. cause list Case type Case number Vehicle Type
Number
dt.12.01.2021
1 265 CRLMP 5912/2020 Trolley RJ-25-EV-1488
2 266 CRLMP 5913/2020 Trolley RJ-25-EV-2348
(1). RJ-26-RB-8002
3 267 CRLMP 5915/2020 Tractor with Trolley (2). Engine No.
NJD2KAE0301
RJ-25-RB-3334
4 268 CRLMP 6309/2020 Tractor with Trolley
RJ-25-EV-1399
5 269 CRLMP 6319/2020 Tractor with Trolley RJ-02-RA-1731
RJ-26-RA-9588
6 270 CRLMP 91/2021 Tractor with Trolley
RJ-26-EV-0277
7 271 CRLMP 139/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-14-RC-5107
8 279 CRLMP 2142/2019 Tractor with Trolley RJ-20-RA-3841
9 282 CRLMP 3244/2020 Tractor with Trolley RJ-33-RA-3714
10 285 CRLMP 5857/2020 Tractor with Trolley RJ-14-RD-4488
Chasis No.
11 286 CRLMP 5874/2020 Tractor with Trolley
MEA8D061AL2279471
1. RJ-32-RA-8184
12 287 CRLMP 5953/2020 Tractor with Trolley
2. RJ-26-RB-8451
13 289 CRLMP 5976/2020 Tractor with Trolley RJ-11-RA-9315
14 292 CRLMP 6024/2020 Tractor with Trolley RJ-23-RA-3095
15 293 CRLMP 6078/2020 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RA-8896
16 294 CRLMP 6195/2020 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RB-5803
17 295 CRLMP 6289/2020 Trolley Blue Color
18 296 CRLMP 6306/2020 Tractor with Trolley RJ-06-RB-0584
19 302 CRLMP 6466/2020 Tractor with Trolley MP-08-AC-9415
20 305 CRLMP 6474/2020 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RA-7119
21 307 CRLMP 6524/2020 Tractor with Trolley RJ-14-RB-8272
22 308 CRLMP 6542/2020 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-7889
Chasis No.
23 311 CRLMP 19/2021 Tractor with Trolley MBNGAAJDULJF0027
24 312 CRLMP 25/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-6271
25 313 CRLMP 26/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-8468
26 314 CRLMP 27/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-9964
27 315 CRLMP 28/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RC-0196
28 320 CRLW 42/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-47-RA-2008
Chasis No.
29 322 CRLW 51/2021 Tractor with Trolley MBNGAAJYNLRF0006
(19 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
30 324 CRLW 53/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-34-RB-4240
Chasis No.
31 333 CRLW 62/2021 Tractor with Trolley MBNGAAJDULJF0031
32 336 CRLW 65/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-14-RD-1364
RJ-25-RC-0089
33 337 CRLW 66/2021 Tractor with Trolley
RJ-25-EV-2242
34 338 CRLW 67/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RB-7819
Petitioner No.1- RJ-25-
Tractor RB-7746
35 340 CRLW 68/2021
Trolley Petitioner No.2- RJ-25-
EV-0123
36 341 CRLW 69/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RB-8684
(1). RJ-25-RB-8659
37 342 CRLW 70/2021 Tractor with Trolley
(2). RJ-25-EV-0082
38 343 CRLW 71/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RB-8585
39 344 CRLW 72/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RC-0253
40 362 CRLMP 109/2021 Tractor RJ-26-RB-8955
41 363 CRLMP 113/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-2181
42 364 CRLMP 123/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-8632
Engine No.
43 365 CRLMP 125/2021 Tractor
RLF5NTA0294
44 366 CRLMP 129/2021 Tractor RJ-26-RB-8949
45 367 CRLMP 160/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-8017
46 370 CRLMP 179/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-51-RA-2199
Harpal gurjar-(1). RJ-03-
RA-4125
Ambala-(2). RJ-26-RB-
47 371 CRLMP 180/2021 Tractor with Trolley
Rambilas-(3). RJ-26-RB-
48 375 CRLMP 192/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-47-RA-2161
49 376 CRLMP 193/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-14-RC-0895
50 378 CRLMP 201/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-14-RD-5228
51 379 CRLMP 202/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-14-RD-2801
Chasis No.
52 380 CRLMP 205/2021 Tractor with Trolley
KZJSH98099853
Chasis No.
53 381 CRLMP 207/2021 Tractor with Trolley MBNGAAJDUKJF0017
54 382 CRLMP 211/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-14-RD-0513
55 383 CRLMP 213/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-5593
56 385 CRLMP 215/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-0830
(1). RJ-26-RB-3280
(2). RJ-26-RB-0765
57 386 CRLMP 216/2021 Tractor with Trolley
(3). RJ-26-RB-5558
(4). RJ-26-RB-4938
58 387 CRLMP 217/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-5308
Chasis No.
59 388 CRLMP 221/2021 Tractor with Trolley MBNGAAJXNLJF0079
Chasis No.
60 389 CRLMP 222/2021 Tractor with Trolley MBNGAAJXNLJC0050
61 390 CRLMP 224/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-28-RA-3990
62 392 CRLMP 226/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-34-RA-9936
63 393 CRLMP 227/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-34-RB-1774
64 394 CRLMP 228/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-34-RB-4050
RJ-34-RB-4304
65 395 CRLMP 229/2021 Tractor with Trolley Engine No.
NLF7AJ0062
66 396 CRLMP 230/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-34-RB-2886
67 397 CRLMP 235/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RB-6395
(20 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
68 398 CRLMP 236/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RB-5491
69 399 CRLMP 240/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-05-RC-4016
70 400 CRLMP 259/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RB-3980
71 401 CRLMP 262/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-7411
Ram-(1). RJ-19-RE-
72 403 CRLMP 267/2021 Tractor with Trolley
Gopal lal-(2).
RLF5NTA0620
73 404 CRLMP 268/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-6140
74 405 CRLMP 269/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-08-RB-2653
75 406 CRLMP 273/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RC-0470
76 407 CRLMP 274/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-08-RB-6702
77 408 CRLMP 275/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-5516
78 409 CRLMP 276/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-6632
79 410 CRLMP 278/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-11-RB-0546
Engine No.
80 411 CRLMP 280/2021 Tractor with Trolley
NLH5NJJ0172
81 415 CRLMP 284/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-0559
82 416 CRLMP 288/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-8018
83 417 CRLMP 295/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-14-RD-1166
84 418 CRLMP 297/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-47-RA-2103
85 420 CRLMP 299/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-4324
86 421 CRLMP 300/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-14-RD-1682
87 424 CRLMP 305/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RB-0025
88 425 CRLMP 307/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RB-6661
89 426 CRLMP 308/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-02-RE-4808
90 427 CRLMP 309/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-9081
91 428 CRLMP 314/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-14-RD-5656
Mukesh- (1). RJ-26-RC-
Tractor with Trolley 0799
92 429 CRLMP 315/2021
Tractor with Trolley Dinesh- (2). RJ-38-RA-
93 430 CRLMP 317/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-7031
94 431 CRLMP 318/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-1764
95 432 CRLMP 319/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-8028
96 433 CRLMP 320/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-3684
97 435 CRLMP 322/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-17-RB-0544
98 436 CRLMP 323/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-5102
Chotu-(1). RJ-14-RC-
Tractor with Trolley 2704
99 437 CRLMP 6503/2020
Tractor with Trolley Suraj- (2). RJ-26-RB-
100 438 CRLMP 324/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-29-RA-6582
101 439 CRLMP 326/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RB-4906
102 441 CRLMP 328/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RA-6095
103 442 CRLMP 329/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-14-RC-2600
104 443 CRLMP 330/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RB-4139
105 444 CRLMP 331/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-29-RB-5904
106 445 CRLMP 332/2021 Trolley Unregistered
107 446 CRLMP 334/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-37-RA-8926
108 447 CRLMP 335/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RA-3889
RJ-25-RB-7092
109 448 CRLMP 336/2021 Tractor with Trolley
RJ-25-EV-2224
110 449 CRLMP 337/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-8558
111 451 CRLMP 339/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RC-0742
112 452 CRLMP 340/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RB-8359
113 454 CRLMP 345/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-07-RC-2785
114 455 CRLMP 344/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-6371
115 456 CRLMP 346/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RA-7760
116 457 CRLMP 347/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RB-9747
117 458 CRLMP 348/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-07-RE-0292
118 459 CRLMP 349/2021 Trolley RJ-25-EV-0994
119 460 CRLMP 351/2021 Tractor RJ-25-RC-0436
(21 of 21) [CRLMP-5912/2020]
Trolley RJ-25-EV-1841
120 462 CRLMP 354/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-25-RB-8523
121 463 CRLMP 356/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-26-RB-8055
122 464 CRLMP 357/2021 Tractor with Trolley RJ-08-RB-9949
Tractor with RJ-05-RB-4241
123 466 CRLMP 360/2021
Compressor
Petitioner No.1- RJ-02-
Tractor with Trolley
RB-8754
Petitioner No.2- RJ-35-
Tractor with Trolley
RA-8975
Petitioner No.3- RJ-14-
124 467 CRLMP 361/2021 Tractor with Trolley
RD-3002
Petitioner No.4- RJ-36-
Tractor with Trolley
RA-3210
Petitioner No.5- RJ-09-
Tractor with Trolley
RD-1403
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
