Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hanuman Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:31948) on 1 August, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:31948]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3529/2024
Hanuman Ram S/o Shri Jala Ram, Aged About 40 Years,
Proprietor Hanuman Builders, Vinayakpura Bhawad, Tehsil Baori,
Dist. Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Haniya
For Respondent(s) : Mohd. Javed Gouri, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
01/08/2024
1. Under challenge herein is an order dated 08.05.2024 passed
by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.08, Jodhpur
Metropolitan in the case pertaining to FIR No.107/2024, Police
Station Boranada, Jodhpur under Sections 279, 336, 379 of IPC
and 4/21 of MMDR Act, 1957.
2. Vide impugned order, the release of the vehicle in question
(Dumper) bearing registration No. RJ-19-GH-6243 has been
allowed upon depositing the fine/compounding amount imposed
by the Mines/NGT Department and producing the receipt thereof
before the learned court below.
3. Vehicle was impounded on 23.03.2024 and ever-since parked
in police custody and needless to say it is deteriorating by each
passing day and would turn into a complete junk if it continues to
be in current condition.
[2024:RJ-JD:31948] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3529/2024]
4. Reference may be had to a judgment of this Court, titled
Narayan Gadri Vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.6304/2021, dated 02.07.2024, which incidentally
was rendered by me. Relevant thereof, being apposite, is
reproduced hereinabove:-
"7. At the very outset, before proceeding further, it would
be worthwhile to refer to a judgment rendered by the
coordinate Bench of this Court in somewhat similar
circumstances in case title Kishore Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan : (2021) 0 Supreme (Raj.) 139 speaking for this
Court, my learned Brother Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
opined 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,
[2024:RJ-JD:31948] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3529/2024]
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
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." (emphasis supplied)
8. XXXXXX
9. XXXXXX
10. From the record of the case file herein, it is not clear if
in the present case confiscation proceedings have been
initiated under Rule 54(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2017. In the premise, guided by the
aforesaid two judgments rendered by Single Bench and
Division Bench of this Court and, taking a harmonious view
thereof, the petition in hand is disposed of with a direction to
the respondents to verify if the confiscation proceedings have
indeed been initiated qua the offending vehicle and if the
answer is in affirmative, convey the status thereof in writing
to the petitioner.
11. In case, the confiscation proceedings have been
initiated, the vehicle shall then be released only on payment
of penalty and compounding fee, in terms of ratio rendered in
Kishore Singh. However, if it is found that no confiscation
proceedings have yet commenced and it is merely an appeal is
[2024:RJ-JD:31948] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3529/2024]
pendency against the penalty/compounding order passed by
mining officer, liberty in that case is granted to the petitioner
to approach the competent Court by filing a fresh application
for release of vehicle on Superdari. Upon doing so, the same
shall be released on furnishing a bank guarantee of an
amount equivalent to the current value of impounded vehicle.
Current value shall be as per the satisfaction of the learned
competent Court dealing with the fresh application, if and
when filed. Other conditions shall also be imposed by the
learned Court as per Single Bench Judgment rendered in
Kishore Singh."
5. In view of the aforequoted, the present petition is also
disposed in same terms. In case the confiscation proceedings have
been initiated, the vehicle shall then be released only on payment
of penalty and compounding fee. However, if it is found that no
confiscation proceedings have yet commenced and it is merely an
appeal is pending against the penalty/compounding order passed
by mining officer, liberty in that case is granted to the petitioner to
approach the competent Court by filing a fresh application for
release of vehicle on Superdari. Upon doing so, the same shall be
released on furnishing a bond of an amount equivalent to the
current value of impounded vehicle. Current value shall be as per
the satisfaction of the learned competent Court dealing with the
fresh application, if and when filed. Other conditions shall also be
imposed by the learned court below as per judgment, ibid.
(ARUN MONGA),J
110-AnilKC/-
Whether Fit for Reporting - Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
