Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1151 (MP)

Ruaab Ahmed v. State Of M. P.

2014-09-15

ALOK VERMA

body2014
ORDER : This application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Criminal Revision No. 97/14 on 27-5-2014 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Criminal Revision filed by the present applicant against the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni under section 457 of Criminal Procedure Code by which the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the present applicant for granting interim custody of truck bearing registration No. MP-18-GA-0510. 2. The learned Panel Lawyer states that the case diary in present case is not available as it is only a complaint (Istgasa) under section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The facts giving rise to this petition are that on 8-5-2014, Police Station, Badwara, District Katni, received an information through informant that a truck bearing registration No. MP-18-GA-0510 is coming from Umariya to Katni. In the said vehicle, illegal coal was being transported. On this information, the truck was stopped and checked by Badwara Police. The driver Rammit Yadav could not produce any valid documents and, therefore, the truck was seized under section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code and Istgasa No. 1/14 was registered. Intimation of seizure of the vehicle was sent to Mining Officer of the district. 4. The present applicant filed an application under section 457 of Criminal Procedure Code before the concerning Magistrate at Katni. The learned Magistrate rejected the application on 15-5-2014 against which the revision was filed before the First Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge observed that intimation was sent by the police to the authorised person under Madhya Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006. The Rule 18 provides that the authorised person may release the property seized under sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 on execution of a bond to the satisfaction of the authorised person by the person, from whose possession such property was seized on a condition that such person shall produce the property whenever asked to do so by the authorised person. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 18 provides that the authorised person shall send intimation of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try such offence and proviso to sub-rule (4) provides that where report has been given to the concerning Magistrate the property seized shall be released only under the orders of such Magistrate. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 18 provides that the authorised person shall send intimation of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try such offence and proviso to sub-rule (4) provides that where report has been given to the concerning Magistrate the property seized shall be released only under the orders of such Magistrate. 5. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that no intimation is received by the concerning Magistrate in this case and, therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to release the property. On this premise, the revision was dismissed. 6. The moot question in this revision is whether under the said Rules, the Magistrate had jurisdiction to release the seized property. 7. The learned Counsel for the applicant cited the orders of this Court passed in M.Cr.C. No. 12083/2009 on 29-7-2011 and M.Cr.C. No. 15099/2013 on 21-4-2014, where the vehicles were seized under Indian Forest Act. He has also cited the order of this Court passed in Raees vs. State of M.P., 2013(5) M.P.H.T. 233 , where the vehicle was seized under M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and also under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Similarly, he has also cited the order of this Court in Dilip vs. State of M.P., 2011(4) M.P.H.T. 140 . where the vehicle was seized under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and M.P. Excise Act, 1915. Further, he has also placed reliance on order of this Court in Yadwinder Singh vs. State of M.P., 2011(4) MPLJ 165. In all these cases, the vehicles were seized under the provisions of different Acts. 8. However, the present vehicle was seized in the provisions of aforementioned rules. The relevant portion of Rule 18 may be quoted below :- "Rule 18. Penalty for unauthorised transportation or storage of mineral and its products.- (1) Whenever any person is found transporting or storing any mineral or its products or on whose behalf such transportation or storage is being made otherwise than in accordance with these rules, shall be presumed to be a party to the illegal transportation or storage of mineral or its products and every such person shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year or with fine, which may extend to Rupees Five Thousand or with both. (2) Whenever any person is found transporting or storing any mineral or its products in contravention of the provisions of these rules, the authorised person may seize the mineral or its products together with tools, equipment and carrier used in committing such offence. (3) The authorised person seizing illegally transported or stored mineral or its products, tools, equipment and carrier shall give a receipt of the same to the person, from whose possession such things were so seized and shall make report to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try such offence. (4) The property so seized under sub-rule (2) may be released by the authorised person, who seized such property on execution of a bond to the satisfaction of the authorised person by the person, from whose possession such property was seized on the condition that the same shall be produced at the time and place, when such production is asked for by the authorised person : Provided that where a report has been made to the Magistrate under sub-rule (3), then the property so seized shall be released only under the orders of such Magistrate. (5) ----- ------- ------- (6) All property seized under sub-rule (2) shall be liable to be confiscated by order of the Magistrate trying the offence, if the amount of the fine and other sum so imposed are not paid within a period of one month from the date of order : Provided that on payment of such sum within one month of the order, all property so seized, except the mineral or its products shall be released and the mineral or its products so seized under sub-rule (2) shall be confiscated and shall be the property of the State Government. (7) *** ***" 9. Going through the provisions of Rule 18 of the said Rules, it is clear that till intimation is sent to the Magistrate, the authority to release the property on interim custody lies only with the authorised person. It also implies that only when the authorised person is satisfied that minerals were being transported illegally in the vehicle, he sends an intimation to the Magistrate with a view that further proceeding for prosecution of the person concerned would be taken. It also implies that only when the authorised person is satisfied that minerals were being transported illegally in the vehicle, he sends an intimation to the Magistrate with a view that further proceeding for prosecution of the person concerned would be taken. In this case, however, as the Magistrate had not received any intimation from the authorised person, which was Mining Officer, District Katni, he had no jurisdiction to release the vehicle on interim custody. 10. It is apparent that the Mining Officer was not satisfied that the minerals were being transported illegally and as such he did not choose to send an intimation to the Magistrate. In such circumstances, in my considered opinion, the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not commit any error of law. 11. This petition under section 482 is devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.