Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1903 (RAJ)

Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan Through PP

2018-09-12

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5590/2018 : The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 31.8.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release vehicle Tractor No. RJ34-RA-4101 alongwith Trolley, to the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in bunch of petitions, lead case being D.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 60/2018, titled as Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, a Division Bench of this Court on 6.4.2018, has held that if a vehicle has been seized under the Provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR Act'), for 72 hours competent Officer can retain the vehicle and thereafter, he is mandatorily required to report the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Division Bench has held as under:- "In view of the above discussion, the referred questions are answered in the terms that once the Officer of the Mining Department, who seized the vehicle, has reported such seizure to his Superior Officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease to have the power to release the vehicle, and in that event, the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be empowered to release such vehicle, with or without the condition of deposit of compounding fee." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not willing to compound the offence, as he has decided to contest the case. 5. The order passed by the court below whereby release of the vehicles on Supurdagi was refused has been assailed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicles and the same are case property of case FIR No.129/2018, registered at Police Station Sadar, Karauli for offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 4, 21 of MMDR Act. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicles in question. 7. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicles in question. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the vehicles should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful. 8. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai , present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the vehicles seized as case property by imposing following conditions:- (a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicles so released intact and shall not change their identification. (b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicles as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property. (c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court. (d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other conditions in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and sureties, which it may deem fit. Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicles. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5591/2018: 9. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 31.8.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release vehicle Tractor No. RJ34-RB-1144 alongwith Trolley No. RJ34-EV-0550, to the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in bunch of petitions, lead case being D.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 60/2018, titled as Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, a Division Bench of this Court on 6.4.2018, has held that if a vehicle has been seized under the Provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR Act'), for 72 hours competent Officer can retain the vehicle and thereafter, he is mandatorily required to report the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. 11. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Division Bench has held as under:- "In view of the above discussion, the referred questions are answered in the terms that once the Officer of the Mining Department, who seized the vehicle, has reported such seizure to his Superior Officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease to have the power to release the vehicle, and in that event, the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be empowered to release such vehicle, with or without the condition of deposit of compounding fee." 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not willing to compound the offence, as he has decided to contest the case. 13. The order passed by the court below whereby release of the vehicles on Supurdagi was refused has been assailed. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicles and the same are case property of case FIR No.129/2018, registered at Police Station Sadar, Karauli for offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 4, 21 of MMDR Act. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicles in question. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the vehicles should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful. 16. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai , present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the vehicles seized as case property by imposing following conditions:- (a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicles so released intact and shall not change their identification. (b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicles as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property. (c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court. (d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other conditions in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and sureties, which it may deem fit. 17. (c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court. (d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other conditions in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and sureties, which it may deem fit. 17. Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicles. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5593/2018: 18. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 31.8.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release vehicle Tractor No. RJ34-RB-1274 alongwith Trolley, to the petitioner. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in bunch of petitions, lead case being D.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 60/2018, titled as Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, a Division Bench of this Court on 6.4.2018, has held that if a vehicle has been seized under the Provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR Act'), for 72 hours competent Officer can retain the vehicle and thereafter, he is mandatorily required to report the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Division Bench has held as under:- "In view of the above discussion, the referred questions are answered in the terms that once the Officer of the Mining Department, who seized the vehicle, has reported such seizure to his Superior Officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease to have the power to release the vehicle, and in that event, the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be empowered to release such vehicle, with or without the condition of deposit of compounding fee." 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not willing to compound the offence, as he has decided to contest the case. 22. The order passed by the court below whereby release of the vehicles on Supurdagi was refused has been assailed. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not willing to compound the offence, as he has decided to contest the case. 22. The order passed by the court below whereby release of the vehicles on Supurdagi was refused has been assailed. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicles and the same are case property of case FIR No.129/2018, registered at Police Station Sadar, Karauli for offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 4, 21 of MMDR Act. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicles in question. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the vehicles should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful. 25. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai , present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the vehicles seized as case property by imposing following conditions:- (a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicles so released intact and shall not change their identification. (b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicles as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property. (c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court. (d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other conditions in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and sureties, which it may deem fit. Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicles. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5594/2018: 26. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 31.8.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release vehicle Tractor No. RJ25-RB-6034 alongwith Trolley, to the petitioner. 27. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in bunch of petitions, lead case being D.B. Cr. Misc. 27. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in bunch of petitions, lead case being D.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 60/2018, titled as Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, a Division Bench of this Court on 6.4.2018, has held that if a vehicle has been seized under the Provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR Act'), for 72 hours competent Officer can retain the vehicle and thereafter, he is mandatorily required to report the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. 28. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Division Bench has held as under:- "In view of the above discussion, the referred questions are answered in the terms that once the Officer of the Mining Department, who seized the vehicle, has reported such seizure to his Superior Officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease to have the power to release the vehicle, and in that event, the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be empowered to release such vehicle, with or without the condition of deposit of compounding fee." 29. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not willing to compound the offence, as he has decided to contest the case. 30. The order passed by the court below whereby release of the vehicles on Supurdagi was refused has been assailed. 31. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicles and the same are case property of case FIR No. 129/2018, registered at Police Station Sadar, Karauli for offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 4, 21 of MMDR Act. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicles in question. 32. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the vehicles should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful. 33. 32. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the vehicles should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful. 33. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai , present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the vehicles seized as case property by imposing following conditions:- (a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicles so released intact and shall not change their identification. (b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicles as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property. (c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court. (d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other conditions in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and sureties, which it may deem fit. 34. Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicles.