JUDGMENT : J.B. PARDIWALA, J. 1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “7A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit and allow the present petition. B. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the Ld. 4th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Limdi in Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 2017 as well as the order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Ld. A.C.J.M. Limdi in Cr. M.A. No. 21/2017 in the interest of justice. C. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue direction to handover the interim possession of the mudammal Ashok Leyland Truck (Dumper) bearing registration No. GJ-23-Y-6766 to the petitioner herein, in the interest of justice. D. To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed, fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. It appears from the materials on record that the applicant herein is the registered owner of a ASHOK LEYLAND TRUCK (Dumper) bearing registration No. GJ-23-Y-6766. This truck came to be seized in connection with a mining case registered at the Limdi Police Station, District Surendranagar vide IC. R. No. 76 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 379 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4(1) and 4(1)(A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and Rules 3, 5, 8, 13 and 17 of the Gujarat Mines (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules. 3. As the vehicle in question came to be seized by the police in connection with the F.I.R. referred to above, the applicant being the registered owner, preferred an application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the interim release. The Magistrate rejected the application. Thereafter, the applicant herein filed a revision application before the Sessions Court. The revision application also came to be rejected. 4. Being dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Courts below, the applicant has come up with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the Courts below committed any error in passing the impugned orders. 6. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the Courts below committed any error in passing the impugned orders. 6. The issue raised in this application is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of Bapalalsinh Dolatsinh Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat, Special Criminal Application No. 8892 of 2017 decided on 24th November 2017. The decision in the case of Bapalalsinh Dolatsinh Jadeja (supra) is also in connection with the very same F.I.R. which is the subject-matter of the present application. I may quote the relevant observations made by this Court in the said judgment as under: “8. It appears from the order passed by the Revisional Court that it relied on one decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Narender in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014 decided on 06.01.2014. The judgment of the Supreme Court dealt with the provisions of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, more particularly, Sections 33, 58 and 61. I have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court will have no application worth the name so far as the case in hand is concerned. 9. The decision of the Supreme Court is based on Sections 59(1) and 61 of the Delhi Excise Act. Section 61 of the Delhi Excise Act reads as under: “61. Bar of jurisdiction in confiscation. Whenever any intoxicant, material, still, utensil, implement, apparatus or any receptacle, package, vessel, animal, cart, or other conveyance used in committing any offence, is seized or detained under this Act, no court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, have jurisdiction to make any order with regard to such property.” 10. Thus, Section 61 of the Delhi Excise Act makes it very clear that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no Court shall have jurisdiction to make any order with regard to such property used in committing any offence and seized under the Act. So far as the Section 59(1) of the Delhi Excise Act is concerned, it is with regard to the production of the seized property before the Deputy Commissioner. So far as the Section 59(1) of the Delhi Excise Act is concerned, it is with regard to the production of the seized property before the Deputy Commissioner. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court took the view that Sections451, 452 and 457 of the Code must yield to the provisions of the Delhi Excise Act. 11. Let me quote the observations of the Supreme Court made in the case of Narender, Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014, dated 6.1.2014, reported in 2014 (13) SCC 100 : “5. Mr. Mohan Jain, Additional Solicitor General appears on behalf of the appellant whereas the respondent is represented by Mr. Harish Pandey. Mr. Jain submits that in view of the embargo put by Section 61 of the Delhi Excise Act, the High Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order for release of the vehicle on security. Mr. Pandey, however, submits that the High Court has the power under Section 451 of the Code to direct for release of the vehicle on security and the same is legal and valid. 6. Rival submissions necessitate examination of the scheme of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 33 of the Act provides for penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, sale etc. of intoxicant and Section 33(a), which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows: “33. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, sale, etc. (1) Whoever, in contravention of provision of this Act or of any rule or order made or notification issued or of any licence, permit or pass, granted under this Act: (a) manufactures, imports, exports, transports or removes any intoxicant. xxx xxx xxx Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees.” 7. Section 58 of the Act provides for confiscation of certain things and Section 58(d) thereof, with which we are concerned in the present appeal, reads as follows: 58. Certain things liable to confiscation. Whenever an offence has been committed, which is punishable under this Act, following things shall be liable to confiscation, namely: xxx xxx xxx (d) any animal, vehicle, vessel, or other conveyance used for carrying the same.” 8. Certain things liable to confiscation. Whenever an offence has been committed, which is punishable under this Act, following things shall be liable to confiscation, namely: xxx xxx xxx (d) any animal, vehicle, vessel, or other conveyance used for carrying the same.” 8. From a plain reading of Section 33(a) of the Act, it is evident that transportation of any intoxicant in contravention of the provisions of the Act or of any rule or order made or notification issued or any licence, permit or pass, is punishable and any vehicle used for carrying the same, is liable for confiscation under Section 58(d) of the Act. Section 59 of the Act deals with the power of confiscation of Deputy Commissioner in certain cases. Section 59(1) thereof provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law where anything liable for confiscation under Section 58 is seized or detained, the officer seizing and detaining such thing shall produce the same before the Deputy Commissioner. On production of the seized property, the Deputy Commissioner, if satisfied that the offence under the Act has been committed, may order confiscation of such property. Therefore, under the scheme of the Act any vehicle used for carrying the intoxicant is liable to be confiscated and on seizure of the vehicle transporting the intoxicant, the same is required to be produced before the Deputy Commissioner, who in turn has been conferred with the power of its confiscation. 9. Section 61 of the Act puts an embargo on jurisdiction of courts, the same reads as follows: “61. Bar of jurisdiction in confiscation - Whenever any intoxicant, material, still, utensil, implement, apparatus or any receptacle, package, vessel, animal, cart, or other conveyance used in committing any offence, is seized or detained under this Act, no court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, have jurisdiction to make any order with regard to such property.” 10. According to this section, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall have jurisdiction to make any order with regard to the property used in committing any offence and seized under the Act. 11. It is relevant here to state that in the present case, the High Court, while releasing the vehicle on security has exercised its power under Section 451 of the Code. 11. It is relevant here to state that in the present case, the High Court, while releasing the vehicle on security has exercised its power under Section 451 of the Code. True it is that where any property is produced by an officer before a criminal court during an inquiry or trial under this section, the court may make any direction as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, as the case may be. At the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, the court may also, under Section 452 of the Code, make an order for the disposal of the property produced before it and make such other direction as it may think necessary. Further, where the property is not produced before a criminal court in an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate is empowered under Section 457 of the Code to make such order as it thinks fit. In our opinion, the general provision of Section 451of the Code with regard to the custody and disposal of the property or for that matter by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person entitled to possession thereof under Section 452 of the Code or that of Section 457 authorising a Magistrate to make an order for disposal of property, if seized by an officer and not produced before a criminal court during an inquiry or trial, however, has to yield where a statute makes a special provision with regard to its confiscation and disposal. We have referred to the scheme of the Act and from that it is evident that the vehicle seized has to be produced before the Deputy Commissioner, who in turn has been conferred with the power of its confiscation or release to its rightful owner. The requirement of production of seized property before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 59(1) of the Act is, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, and, so also is the power of confiscation. Not only this, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court, in terms of Section 61 of the Act, has jurisdiction to make any order with regard to the property used in commission of any offence under the Act. Not only this, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court, in terms of Section 61 of the Act, has jurisdiction to make any order with regard to the property used in commission of any offence under the Act. In the present case, the Legislature has used a non-obstante clause not only in Section 59 but also in Section 61 of the Act. As is well settled, a non-obstante clause is a legislative device to give effect to the enacting part of the section in case of conflict over the provisions mentioned in the non-obstante clause. Hence, Section 451, 452 and 457 of the Code must yield to the provisions of the Act and there is no escape from the conclusion that the Magistrate or for that matter the High Court, while dealing with the case of seizure of vehicle under the Act, has any power to pass an order dealing with the interim custody of the vehicle on security or its release thereof. The view which we have taken finds support from a judgment of this Court in the case of State of K.A. Kunchindammed, (2002) 9 SCC 90 , which while dealing with somewhat similar provisions under the Karnataka Forest Act held as follows: 23.... The position is made clear by the non-obstante clause in the relevant provisions giving overriding effect to the provisions in the Act over other statutes and laws. The necessary corollary of such provisions is that in a case where the Authorized Officer is empowered to confiscate the seized forest produce on being satisfied that an offence under the Act has been committed thereof the general power vested in the Magistrate for dealing with interim custody/release of the seized materials under Cr.P.C. has to give way. The Magistrate while dealing with a case of any seizure of forest produce under the Act should examine whether the power to confiscate the seized forest produce is vested in the Authorized Officer under the Act and if he finds that such power is vested in the Authorized Officer then he has no power to pass an order dealing with interim custody/ release of the seized material. This, in our view, will help in proper implementation of provisions of the special Act and will help in advancing the purpose and object of the statute. This, in our view, will help in proper implementation of provisions of the special Act and will help in advancing the purpose and object of the statute. If in such cases power to grant interim custody/release of the seized forest produce is vested in the Magistrate then it will be defeating the very scheme of the Act. Such a consequence is to be avoided. 24. From the statutory provisions and the analysis made in the foregoing paragraphs the position that emerges is that the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge were right in holding that on facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is the Authorized Officer who is vested with the power to pass order of interim custody of the vehicle and not the Magistrate. The High Court was in error in taking a view to the contrary and in setting aside the orders passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge on that basis.” 12. Thus, the Supreme Court, in the case of Narender (supra) took notice of the following: (i) the scheme of the Act. (ii) The vehicle seized has to be produced before the Deputy Commissioner who, in turn, has been conferred with the power of its confiscation or release to its rightful owner. (iii) The requirement of production of the seized property before the Deputy Commissioner under section 59(1) of the Delhi Excise Act is, not withstanding anything contained in any other law and, so also, is the power of confiscation. (iv) No court, in terms of section 61 of the Delhi Excise Act, has the jurisdiction to make any order with regard to the property used in commission of any offence under the Delhi Excise Act. (v) The legislature has used a non-obstante clause not only in section 59, but also in section 61 of the Delhi Excise Act. (vi) Sections 451, 452 and 457 of the Code must yield to the provisions of the Delhi Excise Act and the Magistrate, or the High Court, while dealing with the case of seizure of vehicle under the Delhi Excise Act, has no power to pass an order dealing with the interim custody of the vehicle on security or its release thereof. (vii) It appears that the Supreme Court also relied on one of its own decisions in the case of State of Karnataka vs. K.A. Kunchindammed, 2002 (9) SCC 90 . (vii) It appears that the Supreme Court also relied on one of its own decisions in the case of State of Karnataka vs. K.A. Kunchindammed, 2002 (9) SCC 90 . This decision is with regard to the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act. The provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act are, by and large, identical to the Delhi Excise Act. 13. At this stage now, let me look into the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. Section 4 of the Act reads as under: “4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease. (1) No person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement: Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, [the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research] of the Department of Atomic Energy of the Central Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any State Government (by whatever name called), and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a Government company within the meaning of section clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013]. Provided also that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any mining lease (whether called mining lease, mining concession or by any other name) in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. (1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. 2. [No reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. 2. [No reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (3) Any State Government may, after prior consultation with the Central Government and in accordance with the rules made under section 18 [undertake reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations with respect to any mineral specified in the First Schedule in any area within that State which is not already held under any reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease]. 14. Any violation of the provision of section 4 of the Act, referred to above, is subject to the penalties as envisaged under section 21 of the Act, which reads as under: “21. Penalties: (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area. (2) Any rule made under any provision of this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with an additional fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention. (3) Where any person trespasses into any land in contravention of the provisions of sub- section (1) of section 4, such trespasser may be served with an order of eviction by the State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by that Government and the State Government or such authorised authority may, if necessary, obtain the help of the police to evict the trespasser from the land. (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. (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. (5) Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable. 15. Section 22 of the Act lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act or any rules made thereunder except upon the complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. 16. Section 23A of the Act makes the offence compoundable by the persons authorized to file the complaint under section 22 of the Act 17. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 15 of the Act, the Gujarat Government has framed the rules called The Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. Rule 91 of the Rules provides for penalty. It reads as under: 91. Penalty: Any contravention of any provision of these rules shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to rupees five lakhs, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to rupees fifty thousand for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention. 18. 18. Thus, any contravention of any provision of the Rules, 2017 is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to Rs. 5 Lakhs or with both. 19. Further more, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (1A) of section 15 of the Act, the rules called The Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 have been framed under section 23(C)(1), which define authorized officer means the District Collector of the District concerned or such other officer as may be authorized by the Government. Chapter-V of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 is with respect to the inspection, confiscation and release. What is relevant for the purpose of deciding this application is Rule 12, which provides for seizure of property liable to confiscation: 12. Seizure of property liable to confiscation: (1) 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 other thing (hereinafter referred to as property) shall be liable to be seized by the Government in the manner specified in sub-rule (2) of this rule. (2) Every Authorised Officer seizing any property under these rules shall photograph the property and place on such property a mark in such manner as may be prescribed, indicating that the same has been so seized and shall: (a) issue a notice in writing in Form-D in Forming the person from whom the property is seized of the property so seized. (b) conduct: (i) an investigation and if he is satisfied that a compoundable offence has been committed in respect of the property, he may, subject to receipt of a compounding application, order payment of such amount for compounding the offence as may be deemed appropriate. (ii) a preliminary investigation and shall produce the property seized before a court empowered to determine commission of such offence, if compounding is not permissible under rule 24 or if no application for compounding is received pursuant to clause (a) above, upon the expiry of fifteen days from the date of seizure or upon completion of the investigation, whichever is earlier. (3) Where any property seized under sub-rule (1) is produced before a court under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) and the court is satisfied that offence has been committed in respect thereof, the court may order confiscation of the property under sub-section (4A) of Section 21 of the Act. (4) No order for confiscating any property shall be made under sub-rule (3) unless the person from whom the property is seized is given: (a) an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds for confiscation. (b) a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. (5) Upon expiry of fifteen days from the date of seizure of the property under sub-rule (2) and prior to: (a) payment for compounding the offence under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-rule (2). (b) completion of the investigation by the Authorised Officer under sub clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-rule (2). (c) a determination under sub-rule (3), the Authorised Officer may release the property on the furnishing of a non interest bearing security deposit or a bank guarantee. (6) The bank guarantee issued under sub-rule (5) shall be valid for an initial period of one years and shall be renewed from time to time until payment for compounding the offence under sub-clause (1) of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) or a determination under sub-rule (3), as applicable, is made. The non-interest bearing security deposit or bank guarantee shall be for an amount equivalent to ten times of the market value of the mineral seized or for such other amount as may be specified by the Government through a notification, subject to a minimum of rupees two lakh. Provided that, if upon a determination under sub-rule (3), a penalty for an amount exceeding the amount of non-interest bearing security deposit or bank guarantee is levied and the penalty amount is not paid, then the penalty amount may be recovered in the same manner as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (7) The property seized under this rule shall be kept in the custody of the Authorised Officer, any other third party, nearest police station / Government premises until: (a) payment for compounding the offence is paid. (b) a bank guarantee is provided pursuant to sub-rule (5). (7) The property seized under this rule shall be kept in the custody of the Authorised Officer, any other third party, nearest police station / Government premises until: (a) payment for compounding the offence is paid. (b) a bank guarantee is provided pursuant to sub-rule (5). (c) an order of court directing its disposal is received by the Authorised Officer. 20. A reading of the provisions of the Act, 1957 and the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 makes it clear, that any violation of section 4 of the Act, imposes restriction on the mining operations in any area, except according to the terms and conditions of the permit or license. It also imposes restriction on transporting, storage of any mineral in violation of the provisions of the Act. The violation of the provisions under section 4 of the Act are punishable section 21 of the Act. Section 21(4A) of the Act confers jurisdiction to the Court, i.e. the Judicial Magistrate to confiscate the vehicle, whereas section 22 of the Act provides the procedure for taking cognizance of the offence under the Act. 21. Rule 12(3) of the Rues, 2017 makes it clear that if the property seized under sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 is produced before a court under sub-clause (ii) or clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 and the Court is satisfied that the offence has been committed in respect thereof, the Court may order confiscation of the property under sub-section (4A) of section 21 of the Act. The powers of confiscation are vested with the Court unlike the provisions of the Delhi Excise Act. Besides the above, sub-rule (7) of Rule 12 provides that the property seized under Rule 12 shall be kept in the custody of the authorized officer, any other third party, nearest police station or the Government premises until, payment for compounding the offence is made, or a bank guarantee is provided pursuant to sub-rule (5) or an order of the Court directing its disposal is received by the authorized officer. 22. Therefore, a joint reading of the Act and the Rules, 2017 makes it clear, that although the authorized officer can seize the vehicle, yet, cannot retain its possession, as no power has been given to deal with the vehicle, as the same vests exclusively with the learned Judicial Magistrate. 23. 22. Therefore, a joint reading of the Act and the Rules, 2017 makes it clear, that although the authorized officer can seize the vehicle, yet, cannot retain its possession, as no power has been given to deal with the vehicle, as the same vests exclusively with the learned Judicial Magistrate. 23. In case, the authorities decide to take any action with regard to the vehicle, then it becomes their solemn duty to file a complaint as envisaged under section 22 of the Act before the competent court. 24. In any case, the very fact of seizure of vehicle would amount to a prima facie decision by the authority under the Act and the Rules, 2017 to have the matter adjudicated through the Court by filing a complaint with the Judicial Magistrate. Otherwise, they can proceed to seize the mines and minerals and impose penalties without dealing with the vehicle. 25. The power of the authority, therefore, with regard to the transport vehicle, is limited to seizure and for production before the court. They have no power to, thereafter, retain the vehicles. 26. In such circumstances, referred to above, the reliance placed by the Revisional Court on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Narender (supra) was thoroughly misconceived. As explained by me, the provisions of the Delhi Excise Act are altogether different and are not, at all, similar to the provisions of the Act, 1957 or the Rules, 2017. 27. Let me now advert to certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Procedure Code so as to explain the issue in details. 28. Sec. 5, Cr.P.C. deals with the saving clause and runs as follows: “Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special Form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. 29. Section 5 Cr.P.C. corresponds to section 1(2) of the Old Code, i.e. 1898. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in the case of Naresh Chandra Das and Another vs. Emperor, AIR 1942 Cal. 593 has explained the words in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary. 29. Section 5 Cr.P.C. corresponds to section 1(2) of the Old Code, i.e. 1898. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in the case of Naresh Chandra Das and Another vs. Emperor, AIR 1942 Cal. 593 has explained the words in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary. I may quote the observations of the Division Bench: “In our opinion the words "in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary" in Section 1(2), Criminal P.C. mean and contemplate a provision specific in affecting the special or local law. The section when analysed would stand thus: 1. Nothing herein contained shall affect any special or local law.... 2. The above prohibition applies in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary- contrary to this prohibition; or in other words. 3. The special or local law shall be affected if there is any provision specifically providing for such affecting. It seems clear that this specific provision to the contrary need not be in the Criminal Procedure Cod itself. It may be in the special or local law also. We cannot read the words "in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary" in Section 1(2), Criminal P.C. as referring to any possible contrariety between a specific provision in the present statute and a provision is a special statute. 30. The above section enacts that nothing contained in the Code shall, in the absence of a special provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special Form-of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. The anatomy of this section is simple, yet subtle. Broadly speaking, there are three components to be separated. First, the Code generally governs the matters covered by it. Secondly, if a special or local law exists, covering the same area, this latter law will be saved and will prevail. The short-sentencing measures and remission schemes promulgated by the various States are the special and local laws and must override. Now comes the third component, which may be clinching. If there is a specific provision to the contrary in the Cr.P.C. then it will override the special or local law. The short-sentencing measures and remission schemes promulgated by the various States are the special and local laws and must override. Now comes the third component, which may be clinching. If there is a specific provision to the contrary in the Cr.P.C. then it will override the special or local law. Reading section 5 Cr.P.C. the conclusion is irresistible that if there exists any special law or if any special jurisdiction or power is conferred upon the court or if any Form- of procedure is prescribed in the special law, then, the provisions of the special law would override the provisions of the general law of procedure. This section in my view, vehemently provides that nothing contained in the Cr.P.C. in the absence of specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force. 31. Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reads as follows: “Section 4 Savings,(1) In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force of any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special Form-of procedure prescribed by or under any other law for the time being in force.” (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the proposition contained in sub-section (1), nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any remedy which a land holder or landlord may have under any law for the time being in force for the recovery of rent of agricultural land Form- the produce of such land.” 32. The meaning of the saving clause is that if anything in the Code is in conflict with anything in a special or local law, the Code shall not prevail to override the inconsistent provisions. 33. Section 41 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the special law. The special law is defined as a law applicable to a particular subject. In other words, the word "special law" refer to a law which is not applicable generally but which only applies to a particular or specified subject or class of subjects. 33. Section 41 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the special law. The special law is defined as a law applicable to a particular subject. In other words, the word "special law" refer to a law which is not applicable generally but which only applies to a particular or specified subject or class of subjects. The Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 is a special law, as well as a local law within the definition of sections 41 and 42, Penal Code and as such the application of section 64, IPC, cannot ordinarily be ruled out to the offences under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, but in view of the special provision in section 246(2) of that Act which provides a special mode for the recovery of fine imposed under sections 72, sub-section (4) of section 149, sub-section (4) of section 150, section 206, and sub-section (4) of section 219 of the Act, which deals with the power of the Criminal Court, for awarding sentence of imprisonment in lieu of the fine, cannot apply to the cases where fine is imposed under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. 34. Sec. 42 of the Indian Penal Code deals with local law as a law, applicable only to a particular part of India. As already noticed, the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 is a special law as well as a local law, within the definitions of Sec. 41 and 42 of the Penal Code. 35. Sec. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. The said section reads as follows: “451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases - When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, or it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.” 36. The power of the Court under Sec. 451, as regards custody of movable property, is not arbitrary. Even though, such power is discretionary, it has to be exercised in a judicial manner. The power of the Court under Sec. 451, as regards custody of movable property, is not arbitrary. Even though, such power is discretionary, it has to be exercised in a judicial manner. Under this section, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to investigate and decide the question of title or ownership of the rival claimants to the property. Only the question of possession of the property at the time the case started, has to be gone into and decided before passing an order for the custody under this section. Sec. 452 deals with order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial. Sec. 457 deals with procedure by police, upon seizure of property. This section reads as follows: “457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property - (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.” 37. The section 457 Cr.P.C. is general in its application and applies to all cases of seizures of property by any police officer and such seizure is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of the Code but not produced before him and provides for the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate for the disposal of property. 38. In the case of Vinayak Gururao Inamdar and Others vs. Bhaskar Vasudeo Shirsat and Others, 1993 Cr. 38. In the case of Vinayak Gururao Inamdar and Others vs. Bhaskar Vasudeo Shirsat and Others, 1993 Cr. L.J. 3594, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, held that a Magistrate cannot in exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. of Cr.P.C. release property seized by the Customs Officers, under the Customs Act and also that Sec. 451, Cr.P.C. would also not apply since the property was not produced before the Court, during any "inquiry or trial" as envisaged under that provision. An order directing delivery of property by a Magistrate, when no criminal proceeding is pending before him, is plainly illegal. The Division Bench, in para5 of the judgment, held thus: “The Magistrate ought to have been mindful of the legal position that the Customs Act embodies elaborate provisions about dealing with seized articles including the confiscation and these special provisions are independent of the provisions of Cr.P.C. and protected by Sec. 5, Cr.P.C. Cumulative effect of Sec. 124, 125 and 110(2) of the Customs Act is that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to make orders with relation to goods seized and liable to confiscate under the Act, in any case before the launching of the criminal proceedings.” 39. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Karnataka vs. K. Krishnan, 2007 (7) SCC 80, was considering a case of a forest offence, under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. In this case, the Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of the Act should be strictly complied with and generally, the seized forest produce and the vehicle, boat, tools etc., used in commission forest offence should not be released and that even if court is inclined to release the same, the authorised officer must specify reasons therefor and must insist on furnishing of bank guarantee as the minimum condition. In the said case, the forest produce was transported in violation of the provisions of the Act. The vehicle used in connection with the transportation, along with the forest produce, was seized. The vehicle was released by the authorised officer, subject to certain conditions, including furnishing of a bank guarantee. A petition under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the authorised officer and the unconditional release of the vehicle, was made. The High Court modified the condition regarding bank guarantee and instead, directed to furnish two solvent sureties to the extent of Rs. A petition under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the authorised officer and the unconditional release of the vehicle, was made. The High Court modified the condition regarding bank guarantee and instead, directed to furnish two solvent sureties to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- each, for the purpose of getting interim custody of the vehicle. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had adopted a casual approach and its order was contrary to law and the casual approach in respect of offences relating to forests, was deprecated. 40. I shall now consider certain provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In this context. Sec. 6A deals with the confiscation of foodgrains, edible oilseeds and edible oils. Sec. 6B deals with issue of show cause notice before confiscation of food grains, etc. Sec. 6E deals with the bar of jurisdiction in certain cases. Sec. 6E has been substituted to provide that except the Collector or State Government, all other authorities, judicial or otherwise, would be debarred from making any order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of any essential commodity, seized in pursuance of an order made under Sec. 3. Thus, a Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to grant relief against seizure under Sec. 457, Cr.P.C. Sec. 6A makes the necessary provision for the confiscation of essential commodities seized in pursuance of an order made under Sec. 3 in relation thereto the Collector of the district of the Presidency-Town, in which such commodity is seized, may order confiscation, if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of such an order. But, no order of confiscation shall be made under this Sec, if the seized essential commodity has been produced by the producer, without prejudice to any action, which may be taken under any other provision of this Act. Sec. 6A of the Act provides the procedure to be adopted by the Collector, before passing order for confiscation, which enacts that after issuing of notice, an opportunity has to be given to the aggrieved party, for contesting the same. The Collector, after giving him a hearing, has to decide the objection and pass an order either confiscating the property or refusing to confiscate the property. 41. The Collector, after giving him a hearing, has to decide the objection and pass an order either confiscating the property or refusing to confiscate the property. 41. In the case of Shambhu Dayal Agarwala vs. State of West Bengal and Another, 1990 (3) SCC 549 , the Supreme Court held that whenever any essential commodity is seized, pending confiscation under Sec. 6A, the Collector has no power to order release of the commodity in favour of the owner. Having regard to the scheme of the Act, the object and purpose of the statute and the mischief it seeks to guard, the Supreme Court held that the word "release" in Sec. 6E, is used in the limited sense of release for sale etc., so that the same becomes available to the consumer public. It was further held: “No unqualified and unrestricted power has been conferred on the Collector of releasing the commodity in the sense of returning it to the owner or person from whom it was seized even before the proceeding for confiscation stood completed and before the termination of the prosecution in the acquittal of the offender. Such a view would render clause (b) of Sec. 7(1) totally nugatory and would completely defeat the purpose and object of the Act. The view that the Act itself contemplates a situation which would render Sec. 7(1) (b) otiose where the essential commodity is disposed of by the Collector under Sec. 6A(2) is misconceived. Sec. 6A does not empower the Collector to give an option to pay, in lieu of confiscation of essential commodity, a fine not exceeding the market-value of the commodity on the date of seizure, as in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance seized along with the essential commodity. Only a limited power of sale of the commodity in the manner prescribed by Sec. 6A (2) is granted. The power conferred by Sec. 6A(2) to sell the essential commodity has to be exercised in public interest for maintaining the supplies and for securing the equitable distribution of the essential commodity.” 42. The sum total of the aforesaid discussion is that if a Special Act embodies elaborate provisions about dealing with the seized articles including the confiscation and such special provisions are independent of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and protected by Sec. 5 of the Cr. The sum total of the aforesaid discussion is that if a Special Act embodies elaborate provisions about dealing with the seized articles including the confiscation and such special provisions are independent of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and protected by Sec. 5 of the Cr. P.C., then the provision of sections 451 or 457 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, would not apply in cases of seizure and confiscation. For the purpose of explaining this, I have also taken note of the provisions of the Forest Act and the Essential Commodities Act. Both are the Special Acts. However, the fact that the Mines & Minerals Act is a Special Act, by itself, is not sufficient to exclude the applicability of the provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. There are no provisions in the Mines & Minerals Act, 1957 or the Rules, 2017 which are in conflict in any manner with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. I have discussed this aspect at length in paras 20 to 25 of this Judgment in details. 43. At this stage, let me also look into a Division Bench Decision of this Court, to which, I was a party, in the case of Rishikesh R. Shahi vs. State of Gujarat, 2012 (5) GLR 4116. This Court, in the said case, has explained in details as regards the Section451 of the Cr.P.C. and the provisions of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage Rules), 2005. I may quote relevant observations as under: “7. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the parties, it would be profitable to look into certain provisions of the Rules of 2005, with which the subject matter of the petition is governed. Rule 3 deals with restriction on possession, storage etc. of minerals. Rule 3 reads as under: 3. Restriction on possession, storage, etc. of minerals: No person shall: (i) Win, possess, store, sell, trade, mine remove in or otherwise deal with any mineral except accordance with the provisions of the Act. (ii) Win, possess, transport, store, sell, trade, mine or remove any mineral from any place except accordance with the terms and conditions of a registration granted by the authorised officer. of minerals: No person shall: (i) Win, possess, store, sell, trade, mine remove in or otherwise deal with any mineral except accordance with the provisions of the Act. (ii) Win, possess, transport, store, sell, trade, mine or remove any mineral from any place except accordance with the terms and conditions of a registration granted by the authorised officer. (iii) transport or carry or cause to transport or carry any mineral by any means from the place of raising to another place without being in possession of a valid transit pass/delivery challan issued by the authorised officer.” Rule 6, falling in Chapter III, is with respect to transport of mineral. Rule 6 reads as under: “6. Transport of mineral: (i) For transportation of any mineral the lease holder shall make an application in Form-A to the authorised officer for issuing of transit passes prescribed by the Commissioner of Geology and Mining. Providing that for the transportation of any mineral from any place the registered stockist shall make an application with legal source of minerals procured, in Form-B to the authorised officer for issuing delivery challan. (ii) All dispatches of minerals by a carrier shall be accompanied with a challan or transport pass duplicate in the Form-B. The person in charge of the carrier shall produce the challan or transport pass at the check post, en route or on demand by any authorised officer. Provided that in the case of transport of mineral by holder of prospecting license or transport of mineral purchased by auction, in addition to transit pass, a special permit by the authorised officer or authorised auctioneer, as the case may be, shall suffice. (iii) Holder of lease or any other mineral concession shall use challan or transit pass book issued by the authorised officer by the State Government in this behalf. The challan or the transit passes shall be in triplicate and machine number with book number and serial number of the pass obtained at a prescribed cost. (iv) All carriers carrying mineral shall stop at all check posts or gates en route and proceed after having been cleared by the check posts/gates authority, who shall make necessary endorsement on the triplicate copy held by the in charged of the carrier. (v) A challan or transit pass issued by the authorised officer shall be duly certified by him for interstate transport. (v) A challan or transit pass issued by the authorised officer shall be duly certified by him for interstate transport. Rule 13 of the Rules, falling in Chapter VI, deals with penalties. Rule 13 reads as under: “13. Penalities: (1) Whoever contravenes the provision of Rule 5, 6, and 8 of these rules shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both and in case of continuing contravention with an additional fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention. (2) Whenever any person raise transport or store or cause to be raised transported or stored without any lawful authority, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or transported stored where such mineral has already been disposed of the price thereof and may also recover from such person rent, royalty or tax as the case may be. (3) Whenever any person raise, transports or stores or cause to be raises or transported or stored without any law full authority any mineral from any land/place and for that purpose or use 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. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, an offence under sub-rule (1) shall be cognizable.” Rule 14 provides for compounding of offence. Rule 14 reads as under: “14. Compounding of offence: Any offence punishable under these Rules may either before or after the institution of the prosecution be compounded by the Authorized Officer on payment of such amount as may be decided by Commissioner of Geology and Mining; When an offence is compounded: (i) no further proceedings shall be commenced against such person. (ii) if any proceedings have already been commenced against such person such proceedings shall not be further proceeded with. (iii) the accused person, if in custody shall be discharged and the property seized shall, if it is not to be so retained, be released.” Rule 17 is with regard to seizure of property liable to confiscation. Rule 17 reads as under: “17. (iii) the accused person, if in custody shall be discharged and the property seized shall, if it is not to be so retained, be released.” Rule 17 is with regard to seizure of property liable to confiscation. Rule 17 reads as under: “17. Seizure of property liable to confiscation: (1) When there is reason to believe that an offence has been committed in respect of any mineral together with vehicles or other conveyances used in committing such offence may be seized by any officer authorised by the Government in that behalf (herein after referred to as the authorized officer) and record details of seizing property in Form-J. (2) Every officer seizing any property under these rules shall place on such property a mark in such manner as may be prescribed, indicating that the same has been so seized and shall as may be, except where the offender agrees in writing to get the offence compounded, either produce the property seized before the officers appointed by the state Government. (3) Where any mineral seized under sub-rule (1) produced before officers authorized by the state government and he is satisfied that offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may order confiscation of the mineral or value or part of the value thereof so seized and produced, together with the vehicles, or other conveyance used committing such offence. (4) No order confiscating any property shall be made under sub-rule (3) unless the person from whom the property is seized is given: (a) a notice in writing in Form-K in-Forming him of the goods on which proposed to confiscate such property. (b) opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the ground confiscation. (c) a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. (5) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (4) no order for confiscation of vehicle, or other conveyance under sub-rule (3) shall be made if the owner thereof proves to the satisfaction of competent authority or authorized officer that it was used without his knowledge, connivance or the knowledge of connivance of his agent, if any or other person in charge of the vehicle or other conveyance in committing the offence and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. (6) The property seized under this rule shall be kept in the custody the authorized officer or with any third party until compensation compounding the offence is paid or until an order of the officer authorized by the Commissioner directing its disposal is received. (7) The State Government may at any time on its own accord call for the examination of the order of confiscation by the competent authority on an application, call for and examine the records of the case and may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and pass such order as he may think fit. Provided that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard.” Rule 18 relates to the power of the Authorized Officer to release the vehicle on execution of bond. Rule 18 reads as under: “18. Power to release property seized on bonds: The authorised officer who has seized any vehicle or other conveyance under rule 13 and where a report of such seizure has been made to the officers authorized by Commissioner under sub-rule (3) of that rule may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property so released, if and when so required before the officers authorized by the Commissioner having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of such seizure has been made.” Rule 71 of the Rules, 2010, prohibits transportation of sand beyond border. Rule 71 reads as under: “71. Prohibition to Transport Sand Beyond Border. No movement of sand shall be allowed beyond the border of the State. In case, any vehicle is found transporting sand to the neighboring State even with authorized royalty pass or delivery challan, it shall be treated as violation of Act and the Rules made thereunder and the penal provisions, except compounding, as specified therein shall be applicable.” 8. In the present case, indisputably the seizure of the vehicle was under the Rules, 2005. In the present case, indisputably the seizure of the vehicle was under the Rules, 2005. On the respondent No. 5's own showing, as reflected from the affidavit in reply, that the office had issued notice to the petitioner dated 6th September, 2012, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005, for the alleged violation or contravention of Rules 3 and 6 of the Rules of 2005, as well as Rule 71 of the Rules of 2010. 9. We are not at all impressed by the submission of Ms. Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that as there is a contravention of Rule 71 of the Rules, 2010, the vehicle should not be released even if the petitioner is ready and willing to execute a bond, or abide by any other conditions. Rule 18 provides the power of the authority for release of the property seized, on the execution by the owner, a bond, for the production of the property so released. It appears that in the present case, the Collector, Surat, rejected the application on the premise that the vehicle in question had been used for illegal transportation of sand beyond the border on number of occasions, but, as rightly pointed out by Ms. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that at no point of time, the petitioner was served with any notice in that regard. 10. In any view of the matter, we are not going into the merit of the question as to whether the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005, for which a show cause notice has already been issued and the proceedings will take its own course. We are only concerned with the limited question as to whether the vehicle should be ordered to be released by imposing suitable terms and conditions pending the confiscation proceedings. 11. We find substance in the submission of Ms. Shah that by keeping the vehicle open to sky for a long period of time will reduce the vehicle to a scrap. The object of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2005 is analogous to Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 11. We find substance in the submission of Ms. Shah that by keeping the vehicle open to sky for a long period of time will reduce the vehicle to a scrap. The object of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2005 is analogous to Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code. An identical question fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 . The Supreme Court was primarily dealing with the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code. While quoting the aforesaid two provisions of the Act in the judgment, it was observed in para 7 as under: “7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: (1) owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. (2) court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody. (3) if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail. (4) this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly, so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.” 12. To safeguard the interests of the prosecution, in that case the Supreme Court directed that following measures should be adopted giving instances contained in para 12 reproduced herein-below: “12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after: (1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles. (2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial. (3) after taking proper security.” 13. While dealing with the seized vehicles from time to time by the police either in commission of various offences or abandoned vehicles or vehicles which are recovered during investigation of complaint of thefts, the court observed as under: “17. (3) after taking proper security.” 13. While dealing with the seized vehicles from time to time by the police either in commission of various offences or abandoned vehicles or vehicles which are recovered during investigation of complaint of thefts, the court observed as under: “17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. 18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be in-Formed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.” 14. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the Supreme Court also considered its earlier decision in the case of Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil vs. State of Mysore and Others, (1977) 4 SCC 358 and made the following observations in para 8. “.........This Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the court observed as under: 4. “.........This Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the court observed as under: 4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject matter of an offence is seized by police, t ought not be retained in the custody of the court or of he police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the sessions judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the court or should be in its custody. The object of the code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the court and a just and proper order should be passed by the court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance. The court further observed that where the property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie defence made out that the state or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, the magistrate may, in an appropriated case, where the ends of justice so require, order payment of the value of the property. To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr. P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest.” 15. The principle as laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) could be made applicable in the facts of the present case. 16. We are also not impressed by the submission of Ms. Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader, that if the that if the contravention is of Rule 71 of the Rules, 2010, then under such circumstances no orders could be passed for the release of the vehicle, even if the owner of the vehicle is ready and willing to execute the bond as provided under Rule 18 of the Rules, 2005. We do not find anything in the Rules of 2005 or in the Rules of 2010, which prohibits the authority to exercise his power under Rule 18 of the Rules, 2005, for release of the vehicle, upon the owner executing a bond, if contravention or breach of Rule 71 of the Rules, 2010 is complained of. Ultimately, if the confiscation is going to be under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005, as reflected from the affidavit in reply, then Rule 71 of the Rules, 2010 would be no bar in releasing the vehicle, pending the confiscation proceedings. 17. Ultimately, if the confiscation is going to be under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005, as reflected from the affidavit in reply, then Rule 71 of the Rules, 2010 would be no bar in releasing the vehicle, pending the confiscation proceedings. 17. If the Rules of 2005 empowers an authorized officer to seize a vehicle on the ground of contravention or breach of other provisions of the Rules, then at the same time, it is also expected of the concerned Department to keep the vehicle in a safe custody and in a manner to ensure that the vehicle is not damaged, but it is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in the open office premises of the Department, not only they occupy substantial space of the office premises of the Department, but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the Police station or other places for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road. Ultimately, if the Department fails to make out any case and the confiscation proceedings are dropped, then under such circumstances, even if the vehicle is returned to the owner, it will not serve any good purpose because of extensive damage being already caused to such vehicles. To avoid all this, Rules provide for release of the vehicle on execution of a bond. Rule 18 of the Rules, 2005, as referred to above, enables the authorised officer to provide for interim custody of such property, pending conclusion of the confiscation proceedings, or any other enquiry. It is only a temporary arrangement, and what is contemplated is, only an interim provision to provide custody with a proper person as the authorised officer thinks fit, with liability to produce the property back as and when directed by the authorised officer. The maximum duration of the arrangement is only till conclusion of the confiscation proceedings, or any other enquiry. It follows that the arrangement is only temporary and the main object is to protect or preserve the property, pending the confiscation proceedings. The maximum duration of the arrangement is only till conclusion of the confiscation proceedings, or any other enquiry. It follows that the arrangement is only temporary and the main object is to protect or preserve the property, pending the confiscation proceedings. Even if the person entrusted with the interim custody is the owner, his possession or custody during the period of entrustment is only as representative of the authorised officer, and not in his independent right. He is bound by the terms of entrustment and the bond executed by him in favour of the authorised officer. His ownership or right to possession may not operate against his obligation to the Department. The entrustment or custody will not invest him with any preferential right to ownership or even possession. In the eye of law, his possession or custody is only that of the authorised officer of the Department. What is stated above does not mean that the power of the authorised officer is arbitrary. Even though the power is discretionary, it has to be exercised in a judicious manner. Whenever such application for interim custody of the vehicle is preferred, the authorized officer is obliged to take into consideration many other factors, over and above the contravention which is alleged. While deciding such an application, the authorised officer's main concern should be to protect or preserve the property, pending the confiscation proceedings or any other enquiry. An application under Rule 18 of the Rules, 2005 could not be rejected only on the ground that the owner of the vehicle is alleged to have committed breach of the Rules. If that be the only consideration, then the object with which Rule 18 of the Rules, 2005 has been enacted, would get frustrated. The authorised officer is obliged to keep the object of Rule 18 of Rules, 2005 in mind while deciding the application. In the present case, we have noticed that the Collector, Surat, being the authorised officer under the Rules of 2005, took into consideration only the fact that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle, was trying to transport the sand outside the State of Gujarat and has past antecedence. In the present case, we have noticed that the Collector, Surat, being the authorised officer under the Rules of 2005, took into consideration only the fact that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle, was trying to transport the sand outside the State of Gujarat and has past antecedence. The Collector, Surat failed to consider the consequences of keeping the vehicle idle at an open place for months together pending the confiscation proceedings, and also failed to consider that the vehicle is prone to fast natural decay on account of weather condition. Such being the position, we are of the opinion that the authorised officer failed to exercise his discretion in a judicious manner. The discretion has to be exercised judiciously and not as per the whims and caprice of the authorised officer.” 7. Thus, in Bapalalsinh Dolatsinh Jadeja (supra), this Court explained the position of law as regards the power of the Magistrate or “to order interim release of the vehicle under Sections 451 or 457 of the Cr.P.C. as the case may be” seized in connection with an offence under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. This Court took the view that unlike the offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, the Magistrate or the Court has the power to order interim release of the vehicle seized in connection with an offence relating to illegal mining. However, I would like to clarify that although such power is there with the Magistrate or the Court under Sections 451 or 457 of the Cr.P.C. yet it has to be exercised for good reasons and in exceptional cases only. If at all the Court concerned has any good reason to order interim release of the vehicle, the same should be on strict condition. To put it in other words, while ordering such interim release, the minimum condition of furnishing bank guarantee should be ordered. 8. The minerals are nonrenewable and limited natural resources and constitute vital raw materials in a number of basic and important industries. The extraction of minerals from nature often creates imbalances, which adversely affect the environment. The key environmental impacts of mining are on wildlife and fishery habitats, the water balance, local climates and the pattern of rainfall, sedimentation, the depletion of forests and disruption of the ecology. 9. The extraction of minerals from nature often creates imbalances, which adversely affect the environment. The key environmental impacts of mining are on wildlife and fishery habitats, the water balance, local climates and the pattern of rainfall, sedimentation, the depletion of forests and disruption of the ecology. 9. The Supreme Court, in the case of Deepak Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2012) 4 SCC 629 , has observed in para 9 as under: “Extraction of alluvial material from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the stream's physical habitat characteristics. These characteristics include bed elevation, substrate composition and stability, in-stream roughness elements, depth, velocity, turbidity, sediment transport, stream discharge and temperature. Altering these habitat characteristics can have deleterious impacts on both in-stream biota and the associated riparian habitat. The demand for sand continues to increase day-by-day as building and construction of new infrastructures and expansion of existing ones is continuous thereby placing immense pressure on the supply of the sand resource and hence mining activities are going on legally and illegally without any restrictions. Lack of proper planning and sand management cause disturbance of marine ecosystem and also upset the ability of natural marine processes to replenish the sand.” In para 19, the Supreme Court extracted the issues and recommendations made by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Clause 4.9 in the said recommendations is with regard to riverbed mining. The same reads as under: “4.9 River Bed Mining: 4.9.1 Environment damage being caused by unregulated river bed mining of sand, bazari and boulders is attracting considerable attention including in the courts. The following recommendations are therefore made for the river bed mining. (a) In the case of mining leases for riverbed sand mining, specific river stretches should be identified and mining permits/lease should be granted stretch wise, so that the requisite safeguard measures are duly implemented and are effectively monitored by the respective Regulatory Authorities. (b) The depth of mining may be restricted to 3m/water level, whichever is less. (c) For carrying out mining in proximity to any bridge and/or embankment, appropriate safety zone should be worked out on case to case basis, taking into account the structural parameters, locational aspects, flow rate etc. and no mining should be carried out in the safety zone so worked out .” 10. (c) For carrying out mining in proximity to any bridge and/or embankment, appropriate safety zone should be worked out on case to case basis, taking into account the structural parameters, locational aspects, flow rate etc. and no mining should be carried out in the safety zone so worked out .” 10. Illegal mining in the State of Gujarat, more particularly, the riverbed mining is at a rampage. Such indiscriminate and illegal riverbed mining has created a lot of ecological imbalance. It is an offence under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and other enactments including the Indian Penal Code. In such circumstances, when a vehicle is being seized in connection with the offence of illegal mining or excavation, as the case may be, the Court, while at all ordering interim release, should impose the minimum condition of furnishing a running bank guarantee or an unconditional bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times the value of the vehicle. 11. In the present case, I am concerned with the case of illegal mining and the power of the Court to release the vehicle seized by the police or any authorised officer pending the confiscation proceedings or the trial. The Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the ill-effects of illegal felling of trees in the forests and the offences relating to the same. 12. The Supreme Court in Section Forestor and Another vs. Mansur Ali Khan, 2004 SCC (Cri) 333, interfered into an order of the Karnataka High Court relating to release of a confiscated vehicle involved in a forest offence during the pendency of the proceeding. The Supreme Court observed that, although power of the High Court to direct interim release is undisputed, yet it is to be exercised for good reasons and in exceptional cases only. The Supreme Court further held that while doing so the minimum condition of furnishing bank guarantee is to be strictly complied with. 13. The Supreme Court relied upon its own decision in the State of Karnataka vs. K. Krishnan, 2000 SCC (Cri) 1289. In the said decision the Supreme Court laid down the law observing that: “The Courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the Act enacted for the purpose of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. In the said decision the Supreme Court laid down the law observing that: “The Courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the Act enacted for the purpose of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. The forests are not only the natural wealth of the country but also protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere. We are of the considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a Court is inclined to release the vehicle. Release of such vehicle during the pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition.” Accordingly, in the Section Forester vs. Mansur Ali Khan (supra), the Supreme Court held that: “From the above dictum of this Court, we find that when a vehicle is involved in a forest offence the same is not to be released to the offender or the claimant as a matter of routine till the culmination of the proceedings which may include confiscation such vehicle. Release of such vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings though permissible, the same should be done for good reasons and that also upon a minimum condition of furnishing a bank guarantee as contemplated under the Act itself.” 14. The attention of all the subordinate Courts across the State is drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prakash Sharma vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1282 . The Supreme Court observed as under: “However, the fact that the court has power to dispose of property seized by the police but not yet produced before the court does not mean that the Special Judge must always release such property to the person from whom the property has been recovered, especially when the state of the case is in suspicion, the investigation is not over and charge-sheet has not yet been laid. The court has to be circumspect in such a situation before releasing the property. The court has to be circumspect in such a situation before releasing the property. While we reverse the decision of the courts below that the Special Judge had no power to release the seized property, we should not be taken to mean that whenever the claimant asks for the property back, he should be given back the said property. That has to be decided on its own merits in each case and the discretion of the court has to be exercised after due consideration of the interests of justice including the prospective necessity of the production of these seized articles at the time of the trial. If the release of the property seized will, in any manner, affect or prejudice the course of justice at the time of the trial, it will be a wise discretion to reject the claim for return.” 15. Applying the dictum of law, as explained above, this application is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Courts below are quashed. The respondents are directed to release the vehicle ASHOK LEYLAND TRUCK (Dumper) of the applicant bearing registration no. GJ-23-Y-6766 on the applicant furnishing an unconditional bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times the value of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the Court concerned within a period of fifteen days from today. The applicant shall carry on his business of transport, strictly in accordance with the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, as well as in accordance with the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. The applicant shall not sell, transfer or alienate the vehicle in any manner, pending the confiscation proceedings, and shall produce the vehicle before the authorized officer, as and when call upon to produce the same for the purpose of further proceedings in the matter. 16. With the above, this application is disposed of. Direct service is permitted. Application allowed.