Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 March, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1379/2022
Lal Singh S/o Shri Abhay Singh Ji Rajput, Aged About 31 Years,
Through Power Of Attorney Shri Kishan Lal S/o Laxman Lal Ji
Jat, R/o Dallakheda (Bika Kheda), Tehsil Mavli, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Acharya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Andaram Choudhary, PP
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
23/03/2022
1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 24.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mavli, District Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revisional
Court') whereby petitioner's revision petition against the order
dated 17.01.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Mavli
(hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') has been rejected.
2. Precisely stated the facts appertain are that on 08.01.2022,
the police authoritites intercepted the vehicle No. RJ-09-GB-6555
(dumper LPK-2518) and found that the same was carrying river
sand (bajari).
3. A case under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section
4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 was registered against the petitioner.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1379/2022]
4. In the meantime, the petitioner moved an application under
Section 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sought
release of the vehicle on supurdaginama.
5. Learned trial Court disposed of petitioner's application for
release of the vehicle on supurdaginama with a direction to the
petitioner to furnish security of Rs.50 lacs apart from depositing
penalty amount of Rs.2,18,000/-.
6. Learned trial Court ordered for deposition of Rs.2,18,000/- in
light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Sunder Bhai Amba Lal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in
2003 Cr.L.R. 103 and judgment of this Court in the case of
Jitendra Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Criminal Misc.
Petition No.1161/2020).
7. The said order was affirmed by the Revisional Court on
24.02.2022.
8. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
the river sand (bajari) which was loaded on the vehicle in question
was not illegal inasmuch as the petitioner was having a royalty
pass dated 08.01.2022 and the same was showed to the police
authorities, however, they did not accept the same.
10. During course of submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner produced the original royalty pass before the Court and
submitted that the river sand in question was duly supported with
the royalty pass and the river sand cannot be said to be illegal,
while challenging the requirement of payment of Rs.2,18,000/-.
11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material available on record.
12. Adverting to the royalty pass (QL080303711400004818),
this Court finds that the date and time issued of the same is
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1379/2022]
08.01.2022, 05:14 pm and the pass is issued by the authority of
Banaskantha (State of Gujarat) whereas the petitioner's vehicle
was intercepted and seized at Sanwad Chowkadi at 6.00 pm which
is evident from FIR No.10/2022.
12. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be presumed that the
royalty pass which is being produced by Mr. Acharya in support of
the transportation of the river sand loaded in the vehicle in
question is genuine.
13. It is, therefore, clear that the royalty pass produced by the
petitioner before this Court does not change the illegal nature of
transportation of the river sand.
14. That apart, since the petitioner has failed to satisfy the
authority about the payment of royalty, this Court does not find
any reason to interfere in the orders impugned.
16. The misc. petition is, therefore, dismissed.
17. The stay petition too stands dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
213-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
