ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against order dated 22.02.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, learned revisional Court), in Criminal Revision Petition No. 97/2017, whereby the learned revisional Court, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, has upheld order dated 14.02.2017, passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, learned trial Court), in respect of C.R. No. 230/2017, Police Station Luni, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner praying for release of seized JCB bearing Engine No. H001233358 and Chasis No. HAR3DXXXTC-1497714 on Superdginama and Jamantinama. 3. Brief relevant facts, for disposal of this petition, are that the aforesaid C.R. came to be registered on 06.02.2017 for offence under Section 21/4 of the Mines and Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rules 48 & 68 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 on the premise that the aforesaid JCB was found engaged in illegal mining. Petitioner, claiming himself to be the registered owner of the aforesaid JCB, filed application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court but the same was dismissed relying on a decision of this Court, at Jaipur Bench, in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1441/2015 (Ramswaroop vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 28.08.2015. It was observed by the learned trial Court that the power to release a seized and impounded vehicle, vests in the authority seizing the vehicle, and it has no power to release the same. The order dated 14.02.2017 was challenged by the petitioner by way of the aforesaid revision petition but without any success. The learned revisional Court, referring to the principle propounded in the case of Ramswaroop (supra), affirmed the decision of trial Court and came to the conclusion that trial Court vests with no jurisdiction to release such vehicle under Section 457 Cr.P.C. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the seized JCB was not found in transportation of any mineral procured as a result of illegal mining rather the vehicle was seized by Luni Police Station under Section 207 of M.V. Act, therefore, the learned Courts below have committed an illegality in refusing release of the vehicle. It was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the seized JCB was not found in transportation of any mineral procured as a result of illegal mining rather the vehicle was seized by Luni Police Station under Section 207 of M.V. Act, therefore, the learned Courts below have committed an illegality in refusing release of the vehicle. It was also submitted that proper conditions may be imposed by the Court for releasing the seized vehicle in favour of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the vehicle found engaged in illegal mining, is liable to be confiscated, as such, no illegality or perversity has been committed by the learned Courts below. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of respective parties and the material available on record. 7. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) stipulates that 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. It is, thus, clear that mining operations cannot be undertaken by a person in any area unless a valid and proper licence is obtained by him. It is not the case of petitioner that he had a valid and proper licence to undertake mining operations in the area where the aforesaid JCB was found allegedly to be engaged in mining. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act of 1957, prescribes that 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. Thus, according to this provision a vehicle found engaged not only in transportation of illegally mined mineral, but also if such vehicle is found engaged in raising such mineral, it is liable to be seized by a competent officer or authority. 8. Thus, according to this provision a vehicle found engaged not only in transportation of illegally mined mineral, but also if such vehicle is found engaged in raising such mineral, it is liable to be seized by a competent officer or authority. 8. Sub-section (4-A) of Section 21 of the Act provides that 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 subsection (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court. Thus, as per this provisions it is further clear that a vehicle which has been seized is liable to be confiscated by an order of the Court competent to take cognizance for the offence. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 also provides for confiscation of such vehicle by an order of the Magistrate. The confiscation proceedings are separate and independent proceedings, which can be initiated by the Court concerned irrespective of the fact whether proceedings for prosecution of the accused are initiated or not and order of confiscation can be passed by the Court without waiting for the result of the criminal proceedings. There is nothing in the provisions of the Act or the Rules showing that order for confiscation can be made only when accused is convicted. The vehicles, which are found involved in the commission of offence, under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, are liable to be confiscated to the State and as a result of confiscation the vehicle vests absolutely in the State and all rights of the owner are lost in it. Thus, when according to the provisions of the Act and the Rules the vehicle so seized is subjected to confiscation, there is no question of its being released even temporarily in favour of the owner. 9. Consequently, the misc. petition is dismissed. In view of the above order, the stay application is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.