JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-owner of Tata Tipper bearing Reg.No.MH-04/DD-[Corrected vide Court order dated : 31/07/2017]0883, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ by quashing the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Kalabuargi in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.90/2016 and also the order dated 06.06.2016 passed in Crime No.164/15 by the learned II Addl. JMFC Judge, Kalaburagi, rejecting the application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 31.11.2015, the complainant-PSI along with his staff, Revenue Inspector and Panchas went to Nadi Sinnur on the credible information about illegal transportation of the sand from the river and loading into the lorry with the help of Hitachi and when the said officials came near the spot, all the persons ran away from the spot, except the driver of the tripper and on enquiry to drivers of tipper about permission and license for transportation of sand, it was informed that no permission is obtained from concerned department, due to which vehicles on the spot including tipper of the petitioner were seized under seizure panchanama and suo-moto FIR was registered against the driver of the tipper and other unknown accused. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. It is also contended that though the vehicle has been released earlier in Crime No.127/2015, even though the said vehicle has not been involved, again the same has been seized and a false case has been registered against the petitioner. It is also contended that if the said vehicle is left in the open place, it is going to be rusted and it would become valueless and useless. It is further contended that the petitioner has raised financial assistance from the financier and if the vehicle is kept idol, it may result in heavy financial loss to the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner also filed an affidavit to the effect that in future the said vehicle will not be used for any such offence and in the event if it is used, the same may be unconditionally confiscated to the Government. It is further contended that the petitioner also filed an affidavit to the effect that in future the said vehicle will not be used for any such offence and in the event if it is used, the same may be unconditionally confiscated to the Government. It is further contended that if the vehicle is released, the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing of the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the said vehicle has been previously used in Crime No.127/2015 and again the petitioner/owner has continued the said illegal transportation of the sand by using the same vehicle. Thereby, he has violated the conditions, which have been imposed at the time of releasing the vehicle. He would also contend that as per Section 21 (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘MMDR Act’ for short), it indicates that if the vehicle is used for the purpose of transportation of sand illegally without permit or licence, the same is liable to be confiscated. He would further contend that when once the vehicle has been seized, it becomes the property of the Government and in the strict interpretation of Provisions of Section 21(4), the same is liable to be confiscated to the Government. He would further contend that if the vehicle is released in favour of the petitioner, again he may use it for the similar purpose and there is likelihood of changing the nature, color and identity of the vehicle which going to be affected at the time of trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader and also perused the records. 7. Before going to discuss the contention, it is just and necessary to go through Section 21(4A) of MMDR Act. As could be seen from Sec. 21 (4A) of MMDR Act, it enables the authorities in case of contravention of any of the provisions of MMDR Act, to confiscate the mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized under the said Act. As could be seen from Sec. 21 (4A) of MMDR Act, it enables the authorities in case of contravention of any of the provisions of MMDR Act, to confiscate the mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized under the said Act. For the purpose of brevity, Section 21 (4A) reads as under; “Sec. 21(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” 8. After going through the above provisions when the said vehicle is liable to be confiscated, then under such circumstances, the provisions of the Act are required to be strictly complied with and followed for the purpose of achieving the object for which the Act was enacted. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized, which is liable to confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act. Before passing an order for release of vehicle, releasing authority or Court has to specify the reasons to justify such release. There should not be a casual or liberal approach. The liberal approach would perpetuate the commission of more offences under the Act. If the mineral and natural resources are not protected, it surely affect the mother earth and environment. The courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the MMDR Act enacted for the purpose of protecting minerals and environment, which is the wealth of the nation. No doubt by going through Section 21 (4A) of the MMDR Act, if any vehicle, tool, mineral or equipment shall be liable to be confiscated by Court, it shall not be normally released to a party till culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscation proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if a Court inclines to release the vehicle during pendency of the case, adequate security should be taken by imposing condition. No party shall feel that release of vehicle would be easier, when such vehicle is allegedly involved in commission of offences under the MMDR Act. If there is liberal or causal approach in such release, it would tempt the offender to repeat commission of such offences under the MMDR Act. 9. No party shall feel that release of vehicle would be easier, when such vehicle is allegedly involved in commission of offences under the MMDR Act. If there is liberal or causal approach in such release, it would tempt the offender to repeat commission of such offences under the MMDR Act. 9. Keeping in view the above aspect on perusal of the MMDR Act, it does not say any thing about release of the vehicle which has been seized under the MMDR Act for interim custody. At this juncture, I feel it is just and proper to refer to Section 30C of the MMDR Act, which reads as under; “30C. Special Courts to have powers of Court of Sessions.-Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall apply to the proceedings before the Special Court and for the purpose of provisions of this Act, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and shall have all powers of a Court of Sessions and the person conducting a prosecution before the Special Court shall be deemed to be a public prosecutor. 10. By going through the provisions of Section 21 and 30C, nowhere MMDR Act deals with the aspect in the event, if a vehicle has been seized, whether the said vehicle can be temporarily released on custody to the owner of the said vehicle or not. When there is no specific provision under the MMDR Act, then under such circumstance, Section 30C of MMDR Act says that Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply to the proceedings. In that context, Section 457 of Cr.P.C. is applicable. In the light of keeping into consideration the scope there under, the application of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the trial Court. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the said vehicle is seized and kept in the open space and left unused, then under such circumstance it is going to loose its value, it may get rusted and it may become valueless. 12. No doubt, Section 21 (4A) of the MMDR Act prescribes that in the event of the proof of the offence, the said vehicle if it is intended to be confiscated, it can be confiscated. When once the property is seized, no doubt it becomes the property of the Government. 12. No doubt, Section 21 (4A) of the MMDR Act prescribes that in the event of the proof of the offence, the said vehicle if it is intended to be confiscated, it can be confiscated. When once the property is seized, no doubt it becomes the property of the Government. But, the object and scope of Section 457 of Cr.P.C. is that in the event of confiscation or release of the vehicle, the value of the vehicle should not be reduced and it should not be kept laying in the Police Station for long time. In that light, the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in AIR SC 2003 Page 638 has been observed that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station for a long time. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking proper bond and guarantee, as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time that can be ordered to be produced and this can be done pending application for return of said vehicle under Section 458 of Cr.P.C.. The scope of Section 457 of Cr.P.C. is to see that the vehicle seized in a crime should be placed in proper custody and while giving such custody, the Magistrate has to consider the fact that from whose possession the said property has been seized and whether the said person is entitled to its possession. In that event, subject to conditions it can be released. 13. By taking into consideration the above said proposition of law and consciously by application of mind to the present facts of the case on hand, it indicates that if a person establishes that he is the owner of the vehicle, then under such circumstances, the vehicle has to be released in favour of said person, of course by imposing some conditions. On perusal of the order of both the courts below, they lost the sight of the spirit and scope of Section 457 of Cr.P.C. and only because it has not been registered permanently, rejected the applications. 14. As could be seen from the records, it is not in dispute that the tipper bearing Reg. No.MH-04/DD-[Corrected vide Court order dated : 31/07/2017.]0883 belongs to the petitioner. 14. As could be seen from the records, it is not in dispute that the tipper bearing Reg. No.MH-04/DD-[Corrected vide Court order dated : 31/07/2017.]0883 belongs to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that earlier the said tipper was seized in Crime No.127/2015 and the same was released. The only question which remains for my consideration is, whether the said tipper which has been seized for having illegally transporting the sand without there being any permit or a licence can be released? If we see the letter and spirit of the MMDR Act, in the event of any vehicle has been seized under Section 21(4), the same is liable to be confiscated. It has been already observed that while releasing the vehicle, the liberal approach would perpetuate the commission of more offences under the Act. If the mineral and natural resources are not protected, it surely affects the mother earth and environment. The Courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations as indicated in the MMDR Act, which was enacted for the purpose of protecting minerals and environment, which is the wealth of the Nation. When already the vehicle has been released in Crime No.127/2015 and the petitioner has used the said vehicle once again for illegal transportation of the sand, under such circumstances, normally the said type of activities are not encouragable. However, in view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner/owner to the effect that he is not going to use the said vehicle for any such criminal activities and if it is going to be used, the same may be unconditionally confiscated, I feel that in order to give him an opportunity, it is just and proper to release the vehicle by imposing some stringent conditions. 15. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the vehicle bearing Reg. 15. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the vehicle bearing Reg. No.MH-04/DD-[Corrected vide Court order dated : 31/07/2017.]0883 is ordered to be released by the jurisdictional Magistrate in favour of the petitioner/owner subject to the following: CONDITIONS (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court and a charge has to be created on such property; (ii) The petitioner should not change or alter the nature, condition and color of the vehicle; (iii) The petitioner should not take away the parts of the vehicle; (iv) Before getting the vehicle released in favour of the petitioner, the Investigating Officer shall take photographs of the vehicle from all angle and the petitioner has to endorse that he will not dispute the identity of the said vehicle at the time of trial and to that effect he has to file an affidavit before the jurisdictional Court. (v) The petitioner should file an affidavit to the effect that he will produce the said vehicle before the jurisdictional Court as and when required. (vi) The petitioner should file an affidavit to the effect that in the event of any order of confiscation, he will surrender the said vehicle before the Court or else the value of the said vehicle is liable to be confiscated from the properties of the petitioner or can proceed with the properties of sureties given at the time of release of the vehicle. (vii) The petitioner should not use the vehicle for similar type of offences and if it is used, the same will be unconditionally confiscated to the Government without further orders.