Memraj vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:36613)
2025 Latest Caselaw 6281 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Memraj vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:36613) on 14 August, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:36613]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6730/2025

Memraj S/o Sohanlal, Aged About 24 Years, Rohicha Kala, Luni,
District Jodhpur City West, Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2.       Vishal Kumar S/o Ramprasad, Hal Sho Ps Kalyanpur,
         Balotra (Raj)
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Ramdev Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

14/08/2025

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by

the order passed by the learned Court below for release of

vehicles in question, which has been seized by the respondent for

violation of mining laws, on supurdaginama. By the said order, the

prayer for release of vehicle has either been rejected or has been

allowed by putting onerous conditions of depositing the amount of

penalty and compounded fee as levied by mining officer.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

vehicle in question has been seized by the respondent for alleged

illegal mining activity as per the provision of Rule 54 read with

Rule 60 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2017 and

Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)

Act, 1957 read with Section 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is

further submitted that the petitioner being registered owner of the

[2025:RJ-JD:36613] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-6730/2025]

vehicle in question is entitled to get back the possession of the

seized vehicle. There is no other person claiming supurdgi over

the said vehicle. It is contended that the vehicle in question may

be directed to be released in favour of the petitioner on interim

custody keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v.

State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the

vehicle in question was found involved in transportation of illegal

minerals, particularly, bajri/river sand. It is submitted that the

vehicle has been seized by the competent Government Official on

finding that it is being used for illegal purposes and in case, it is

released on supurdaginama, the possibility of offending vehicle

being used in illegal activities of like nature or otherwise cannot be

ruled out.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the controversy

involved in the present case has already been set to rest by the

Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Kishore Singh

v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition

No.3595/2021) and Narayan Gadri v. State of Rajasthan

(S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6304/2021). The relevant

portion of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench in Narayan

Gadri (supra) is reproduced below for ready reference:-

"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

[2025:RJ-JD:36613] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-6730/2025]

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 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 rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that in almost similar controversy an another Coordinate Bench of

this Court in the case of M/s Mahadev Construction v. State of

Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2179/2025) was

pleased to hold that a criminal Court is not supposed to keep a

vehicle detained until the confiscation proceedings are initiated

and concluded by the mining department and, therefore, in the

cases where confiscation proceedings have neither been initiated

nor concluded by the mining department, there are no reasonable

grounds for keeping the vehicle detained for an indefinite period or

for the purpose of completion of formalities. The relevant portion

[2025:RJ-JD:36613] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-6730/2025]

of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench in M/s Mahadev

Construction (supra) is reproduced below for ready reference:-

"...4. There is no complete bar under law giving interim custody to the rightful owner of the property. A proceeding under mining laws can be instituted only upon filing of a complaint at the instance of the authorized officer and the cognizance of offence can be taken based upon the averments made in the complaint. There is a non obstante clause to the effect that no Court shall take cognizance under the MMDA or Rules made thereunder except upon a complaint moved on behalf of the authorized officer. If any proceeding is undertaken by the Mining Department, the process shall be followed in accordance with the provision and rules made thereunder. A criminal court is not supposed to keep detained a vehicle seized by the Police for an offence of theft of mineral. After effecting seizure by the Police under the force of BNSS, the provision under Section 503 of Cr.P.C. attracts automatically and the law relating to disposal of the property would govern the field.

5. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court is similar circumstance in the case of Kishore Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan:

(2021) 0 Supreme (Raj.) 139.

6. The Mining Department may initiate the proceeding independently and it would be free and at liberty to take all legal actions if fine, penalty etc. are ascertained and whereafter needful can be done in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. As on date, the vehicle has not been confiscated, thus, a criminal court is not supposed to keep a vehicle detained until the confiscation proceeding is commenced and concluded by the Mining Department in the manner of an agent of the Department of Mining. If any order is passed by the Mining Department or even if confiscation order is made, the vehicle can be taken back by the Department but not by the Police. As on date, there are no reasonable grounds to keep detained the vehicle for an indefinite period or for the purpose of completion of procedural

[2025:RJ-JD:36613] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-6730/2025]

formalities. Keeping detained a vehicle for an indefinite period certainly put decay and deterioration to the property which would be a loss to the asset of the Nation.

7. Till now notice has not been given by mining department to the petitioner and taking into account the submission with regard to non- obstante clause of the MMDA which stipulates taking cognizance of offence only upon a complaint moved by appropriate officer and so also considering that the criminal court can handover interim custody of the property to its true owner, in light of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the instant misc. petition is allowed and this Court deems it just and appropriate to release the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner on interim custody till conclusion of the trial provided he furnishes a Supurdaginama of Rs. 10,00,000/- and surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below."

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material

available on record.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having

perused the judgments of the Coordinate Benches of this Court

particularly rendered in the cases of Kishore Singh (supra),

Narayan Gadri (supra) and M/s Mahadev Construction

(supra), this Court finds that the controversy involved in the

present criminal misc. petition has already been set to rest and is

no longer res integra. Therefore, the petition in hand is to be

decided in accordance with the parameters laid down in these

judgments.

8. Consequently, it is held that under the mining laws, the state

authorities have the powers for initiating confiscation proceedings

in relation to the vehicle seized for violation of the mining laws. It

is once, the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the vehicle

cannot be released on supurdaginama as prayed by the petitioner.

[2025:RJ-JD:36613] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-6730/2025]

However, the said vehicles can only be released on payment of

penalty and compounding fees. Whereas, the vehicle qua which no

confiscation proceedings has yet been commenced, the competent

criminal Court can handover interim custody of the vehicle to its

true owner as a criminal Court is not supposed to keep a vehicle

detained until the confiscation proceedings are commenced and

concluded by the mining department.

9. It is however, made clear that in case the criminal Court had

handed over interim custody of the vehicle to its true owner on

supurdaginama, the mining department shall be free to pass

confiscation order and take back the vehicle in accordance with

law.

10. The present criminal misc. petition is disposed of with liberty

to the petitioner to approach the competent Court for filing fresh

application for release of his vehicle. The competent Court shall

decided the fresh application, if filed, in accordance with the

observations made by this Court in para 8 of the judgment.

11. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J 309-Hanuman/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)