Laxmilal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 17701 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6165/2021

Laxmilal S/o Sh. Mana Dangi, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Kherad, Police Station - Salumber, District Udaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah For Respondent(s) : Mr. AR Chouudhary, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

25/11/2021

1. The instant Cr. Misc. Petition has been preferred by the

petitioner against the order dated 5.7.2021 passed by the

learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Salumber, District Udaipur in

Cr. Revision Petition No.8/2021 whereby the order dated

1.6.2021 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Salumber,District Udaipur in FIR No.20/2020,

Police Station Geengla, District Udaipur has been affirmed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present Cr. Misc. Petition are

that the petitioner being the registered owner of the tractor

in question moved an application under Section 457 of the

Cr.P.C. for releasing the same on furnishing Supurdaginama.

The said tractor came to be seized by the police in

connection with illegal transportation of sand (Bajri) and

accordingly, an FIR alleging offence under Section 369 of

IPC, under Section 3 of PDPP Act, under Section 4 read with

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-6165/2021]

21 of the MMDAR Act and under Rules 54 and 60 of the

Rajasthan Mineral Minor Concession Rules, 2017 came to be

lodged.

3. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of

the Cr.P.C. has been allowed by the learned ACJM, Udaipur

on certain conditions vide order dated 1.6.2021.

4. Aggrieved by the condition imposed in the order dated

1.6.2021, the accused-petitioner challenged the legality and

correctness of the said order by preferring revision petition

before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, but the same has

been dismissed vide order dated 5.7.2021 while affirming

the order passed by the learned ACJM in respect of the

delivery of the vehicle.

5. Both the orders have been assailed by the petitioner by way

of filing the instant cr. Misc. petition.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

conditions as imposed by the learned Courts below are

onerous to the petitioner as he was not able to deposit the

amount as directed by the learned Court below. He submits

that in the judgment delivered by the coordinate Bench in

bunch of Cr. Misc. Petitions led by SB Cr. Misc. Petition

No.3595/2021 (Kishore Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan),

decided on 15.9.2021, this Court held that if the confiscation

proceedings has not been initiated by the department, the

vehicle can be released on usual conditions.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor admits the fact that the

controversy has been resolved by this Court in the case of

Kishore Singh (supra).

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-6165/2021]

8. Heard, pondered the overall submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

judgment rendered in the case of Kishore Singh (supra).

9. The coordinate Bench while deciding several Cr. Misc.

Petitions for releasing the vehicle observed thus:

"25. This Court, on a careful examination of the precedent laws in an intricate manner, finds that the precedent laws of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) and Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambal Abhyaran Vs. Narottam Singh (supra) , as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, shall govern the field, and thus, the vehicles seized under the mining law and the forest law, shall be released, upon charging the compensation/compounding fee or without charging the compensation/compounding fee, only and only, if the confiscation proceedings in regard thereto have not been initiated by the State authorities. It is to be noted that both mining and the forest laws have the provisions for confiscation proceedings.

26. It is also observed that until the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the Magistrate concerned shall have the power to release the vehicle(s) with or without condition of deposition of compensation/compounding fee, but the Magistrate concerned shall be required to impose a condition of furnishing of a bank guarantee, so as to secure the compensation/compounding fee, if required to be levied in future, after completion of the proceedings.

27. It is made clear that once the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property cannot be made, in view of the law laid down in Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambal Abhyaran Vs. Narottam Singh (supra).

28. Thus, while parting with the present controversy, it is directed that all the police stations shall release the vehicles in question, may it be tractor, trolley, truck, dumper to the registered owners of the said vehicles, after confirming from the respective Department that there is no confiscation proceeding, under the mining or forest laws, going on in regard to the vehicles in question.

29. To ensure that after undergoing the proceedings, the concerned parties i.e. registered owners of the

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-6165/2021]

vehicles in question shall be paying the requisite compensation/compounding fee, it is directed that the active bank guarantee, equivalent to the compensation/compounding fee, shall be deposited by the registered owners before the trial court before release of the vehicles in question.

30. It is also directed that after such bank guarantee equivalent to the compensation/compounding fee is deposited before the trial court concerned, to which the concerned police station is attached, the trial court concerned shall be required to keep such bank guarantees intact, until the final conclusion of the proceedings; and until the final conclusion of such proceedings is done by the competent courts, the bank guarantee shall remain subject to it and the orders passed at the end of the proceedings by the concerned trial court shall govern disposal of the bank guarantee.

31. It is further made clear that the petitioners shall be required to furnish photographs of their respective vehicles, showing their numbers, colours etc. Furthermore, at the time of release of the vehicles in question, the petitioners shall give an undertaking before the concerned learned trial court alongwith bank guarantee, as directed, that they shall not use such vehicles for any illegal and unlawful purpose, and in case any second offence, by means of the vehicles, is made out, then the same shall not be released, on any condition, until the confiscation proceedings come to an end."

10. In this view of the matter, the instant Cr. Misc. Petition also

deserves to be disposed of on the same terms and conditions

as enumerated in the case of Kishore Singh (supra).

11. Accordingly, this Cr. Misc. petition is disposed of as observed

above.

12. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(FARJAND ALI),J

50-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)