Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 300 (PNJ)

Harjit Singh @ Rana v. State of Punjab

2014-02-07

SURINDER GUPTA

body2014
Mr. Surinder Gupta, J.: - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.05.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran, declining the application for the release of vehicle of the petitioner on supardari and the order dated 19.07.2013 by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar passed in Criminal Revision No.75 of 2013 whereby the order of the trial Court was confirmed and the revision petition was dismissed. 2. The FIR bearing No.57 dated 14.05.2013 was registered at Police Station Chohla Sahib, District Tarn Taran for offence under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 (in short, ‘The Act’). As per the allegations in the FIR, Police apprehended the tractor trolla No.PB-36A-7322, filled with sand from the river bed in an illegal and unauthorized manner. The challan dated 10.07.2013 has been presented against the petitioner in Court. 3. The trial Court declined the application for giving the vehicle on supardari, in view of the provisions of Section 21(4)(4A) of ‘the Act’ and the directions of this Court in CWP No.18886 of 2012(O&M), 18377 of 2012 (O&M) and 18934 of 2012 (O&M). 4. The revisional Court found no fault with the reasoning given by the trial Court. 5. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and paper book perused. 6. Section 21(4) and (4A) of ‘the Act of 1999’ provide as follows: “(4) Whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, and, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, such mineral tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially empowered in this behalf. (4A) Any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized under sub-Section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub-section(1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court.” 7. Under the aforesaid provisions any tool, equipment, vehicle etc. used for offence under Section 21 of ‘the Act’ is liable to be seized by an officer or authority especially powered in this behalf. Under Section (4A) such tool, equipment vehicle etc. Under the aforesaid provisions any tool, equipment, vehicle etc. used for offence under Section 21 of ‘the Act’ is liable to be seized by an officer or authority especially powered in this behalf. Under Section (4A) such tool, equipment vehicle etc. shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the Court competent to take cognizance of the offence under Section 21(1) of ‘the Act’. 8. During the course of argument the learned State counsel has not pointed out any order passed by an officer or authority specially empowered under ‘the Act’ or by the Court, as per the provisions of Section 21(4A) to confiscate the tractor trolly in question. The order of the Courts below declining the application for supardari without there being any order to confiscate the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court bearing CWP No.18886 of 2012 (O&M) Annexure P-2 which are as follows: “The State of Punjab shall, while implementing the provisions of the 2012 Rules as well as the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 take notice of Section 21(4) and (4-A) of the aforementioned Act and ensure that these provisions are implemented in their entirety and compounding of offences is discouraged and ensure also that any material that is seized, is put to auction so as not to cause any loss to public property. A direction is also issued to all Courts seized of such offences to discourage compounding of offences and ensure compliance with Section 21(4) and (4-a) of the Act.” 10. He has argued that no directions have been given by this Court in the aforesaid case to decline the application for taking a vehicle on supardari without there being any specific order to confiscate the vehicle. The only direction issued are for compliance of provisions of Section 21(4)(4A). The perusal of the observation of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court shows that the directions are only for the compliance of the provisions of ‘the Act’ and do not limit the power of the Court to exercise jurisdiction of giving the vehicle, carrying the sand etc. removed from the river bed in an illegal and unauthorized manner, on supardari. removed from the river bed in an illegal and unauthorized manner, on supardari. The competent authorities under ‘‘the Act’’, as well as the Court under Section 21(4A) is competent to order confiscation of the vehicle. In the absence of any order under Section 21(4) (4A) of ‘the Act’ the Court may pass order to release the recovered vehicle on supardari, if so deemed appropriate. 11. In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and orders dated 22.05.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1) as well as order dated 19.07.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar (Annexure P-6) are set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20.02.2014 and the trial Court will take up the application, filed by the petitioner afresh, after hearing the parties.