Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohit Gora vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:38916) on 1 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:38916]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7195/2025
Mohit Gora S/o Hiraram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot No 57
Ganga Vihar Opposite Sector 2 Kudi Bhagtasni Housing Board
Dist Jodhpur Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. The Mining Department, District Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sanjay Bishnoi a/w Mr.
Ramprakash Dudi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh, PP.
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG assisted
by Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
01/09/2025
1. By way of the instant criminal miscellaneous petition,
challenge has been made to the order dated 20.08.2025 passed
by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic
Offences), Jodhpur Metropolitan, District Jodhpur, in relation to
FIR No.135/2025 registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, District
Jodhpur, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for release of the
vehicle in question, i.e., Dumper bearing registration No. RJ-14-
GL-8921, has been declined.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
impounding of the vehicle, it has remained parked in police
custody and with each passing day, its condition is deteriorating.
He submits that if it continues to remain in the present condition,
[2025:RJ-JD:38916] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7195/2025]
it will soon turn into complete junk, causing irreparable loss to the
petitioner.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the instant criminal misc.
Petition.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:38916] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7195/2025]
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 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. In view of the above, the instant misc. Petition is allowed and
this Court deems it just and appropriate to release the vehicle on
furnishing a Supurdaginama 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.
8. Before releasing the vehicle, the trial court shall verify that
the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question.
9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
155-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
