Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lalita Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 May, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023/RJJD/014894]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2465/2023
Lalita Kanwar W/o Surendra Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Krishi Mandi Road Beawer Dist. Ajmer Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Department Of Mines And Geology, Shastri Circle Udaipur
Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
12/05/2023
1. A revision was preferred by the petitioner against the order
dated 07.06.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bar
wherein the application moved by the petitioner under Section 457
CrPC seeking release of the vehicle was dismissed. The revision so
filed by the petitioner before learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jaitaran, District Pali also came to be dismissed vide order dated
15.07.2022, thus, by way of filing the instant petition under
Section 482 CrPC, a challenge has been made to the orders
passed by the magistrate and by the revisional court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conduct
of the mining authorities is prejudiced and they are indulged in
corrupt practices as discrimination made by them between
similarly situated persons is clearly evident. He buttresses and
bolsters his submission while drawing the attention of this Court
[2023/RJJD/014894] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2465/2023]
towards some matters in which the same authority imposed a
lesser amount of fine for a particular offence on other individuals
from whose vehicles sand was actually recovered whereas a
higher amount of fine was imposed on the petitioner from whose
vehicle no sand was recovered.
3. It is further submitted that a lesser penalty was imposed on
those vehicles in which sand was found loaded but at the same
time, the petitioner's vehicle was not carrying any sand, yet a fine
of Rs. 4,26,250/- was imposed as the petitioner was not in
agreement with the undue terms brought forth by the concerned
authority.
4. Liberty, equality and social justice form the signature tune of
the Constitution. As per the mandate of the Constitution, equally
placed persons must be treated equally; discrimination among
them is surely a threat to the constitutional rights, thus, in view of
aspersions being of serious nature and observation regarding
strong possibility of unequal treatment having been committed at
the hands of the mining authorities, it is deemed appropriate to
interfere in this matter.
5. Issue notice.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the
State.
7. The concerned Mining Engineer shall remain present in
person before this Court along with all the files/papers related to
other vehicles which were intercepted by the Department on the
particular day when the vehicle of the petitioner was seized and
fine was imposed.
[2023/RJJD/014894] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2465/2023]
8. At this juncture, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that as an interim measure, the interim custody of the vehicle be
handed over to the petitioner on supurdaginama considering that
the vehicle is lying in an open area and there is every possibility of
its deterioration and natural decay in view of the climatic situation.
It was also urged that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit
a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- tentatively as fine with the department
within a period of ten days if the benefit of interim custody of the
vehicle till disposal of the instant criminal misc. petition is granted
to him.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the above prayer
if interim custody is granted with imposition of certain terms and
conditions.
10. It has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in
(2002) 10 SCC 283 that there is no reason to deny interim
custody of the vehicle to the owner or person entitled to get
possession of the vehicle as if the vehicle is allowed to be kept in
the police station for an indefinite period, then value of the vehicle
shall diminish substantially and it may not remain in usable
condition.
11. Upon consideration of the submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as taking into account that it is
better to allow the vehicle to be released than keep the same in
custody and ultimately cause national loss in light of the judgment
passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai (supra), the prayer of the petitioner deserves to be allowed.
[2023/RJJD/014894] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2465/2023]
12. In this background, it is directed that the vehicle in question
bearing registration No. RJ-22-GA-3529 shall be handed over to
the petitioner as an interim measure till decision of the issue
involved provided he furnishes supurdaginama of Rs.5,00,000/-
and jamanatnama of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
below and deposits a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as tentative fine to
the mining department.
13. List the matter on 11.07.2023.
(FARJAND ALI),J
55-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
