JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This matter has been laid before us upon a reference by a Single Bench of this Court on following question for authoritative pronouncement in view of conflicting judgments rendered by two Single Benches:- “(I) Whether view expressed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ramswaroop’s case and Mala Ram’s Case is correct? (II) Whether the criminal court has jurisdiction to release the vehicles seized under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986? If yes, at what stage & in which circumstances ?” 2. Facts of the first case, namely, D.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.60/2018, are being taken as the basis for answering the referred questions. A First Information Report No.448/2017 was registered with Police Station Beawar Sadar for offence under Sections 143, 323, 341, 332, 353, 379 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the MMDR Act’). F.I.R. was registered at the instance of Mahendra Singh, Head Constable, Police Station Beawar Sadar. It was alleged therein that the Station House Officer of that Police Station along-with certain other police personnel and Manish Panwar, Foreman of the Mines Department, on the instructions of the Circle Officer, Beawar, inspected different mines of village Lahari and Kanakhera to prevent illegal mining. During the course of checking, one Narendra Singh, Head Constable and Goparam, Constable, along with Manish Panwar reached the place of illegal mining, where unnumbered JCB 3 DX was being used for loading illegally excavated minerals in Dumper RJ-36-GA-4457. When the name of JCB driver was asked, he disclosed his identity as Rashid Kathat S/o Shri Samda Kathat, R/o Bichali Dang, Kanakhera. On being further asked to produce licence or permit for mining, he failed to produce the same. Mining activity was thus being carried out illegally. Mining Officer seized the aforesaid JCB vehicle but the Driver, taking advantage of darkness, escaped. During the course of investigation, the Dumper was seized. Police Intended to take the dumper to Police Station. The dumper was being driven by one Omprakash and informant Narendra Singh along-with Gopalram were also sitting on the dumper. Even as they had covered distance of only one kilometer towards Beawar, 5-6 persons came there on three different motorcycles and intercepted them. Police Intended to take the dumper to Police Station. The dumper was being driven by one Omprakash and informant Narendra Singh along-with Gopalram were also sitting on the dumper. Even as they had covered distance of only one kilometer towards Beawar, 5-6 persons came there on three different motorcycles and intercepted them. Driver of dumper Kalu and Gaurav Rawat R/o Gopal Sagar were also accompanying them. They indulged in ‘maar-peet’ with the police personnel and ran away with the dumper. Dumper was however later again seized. 3. Petitioner Laxman Singh, claiming to be the registered owner of the dumper, filed an application before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Beawar for releasing the dumper on ‘supurdaginama’. The learned ACJM dismissed the application vide order dated 21.11.2017 by holding that this vehicle was found involved in illegal mining, therefore it could not be released as his Court was not empowered to release the vehicle under Section 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the judgment of this Court in Ramswaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2016 (1) RLW 490 and another judgment of this Court dated 10.03.2017 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous petition no.759/2017 – Mala Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Revision Petition before the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Bawar, who by order dated 20.12.2017, relying on the judgments of this Court in Ramswaroop, supra, and Mala Ram, supra, dismissed the Revision Petition and affirmed the order dated 21.11.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this court. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Arguments on behalf of the petitioners have been led by Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, learned counsel. He has argued that sub-sections (4) and (4A) of Section 21 of the MMDR Act provides that upon seizure of a tool, equipment, vehicle, etc. being reported by an officer or an authority empowered under the MMDR Act, the tool, equipment, vehicle, etc. are not only liable to be confiscated by an order of the Court, which is competent to take cognizance of the offence, but the same (articles/things) shall also be disposed off in accordance with the direction of such Courts. being reported by an officer or an authority empowered under the MMDR Act, the tool, equipment, vehicle, etc. are not only liable to be confiscated by an order of the Court, which is competent to take cognizance of the offence, but the same (articles/things) shall also be disposed off in accordance with the direction of such Courts. Once the seizure was reported by the Mining Officer to the Magistrate, it is incumbent on the Magistrate to pass appropriate order for release of the vehicle in accordance with law. Mere absence of any complaint by authorized officer at the stage of release, would not be an impediment to pass appropriate orders for release as power to release the vehicle and power to take cognizance are two different fact situations and the former is not dependent on the latter. It is submitted that the judgments of this Court in Ramswaroop and Mala Ram do not lay down correct law. The MMDR Act and the Rajasthan Mine and Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, ‘the RMMC Rules of 1986’) have not been correctly considered therein. Sub-sections (4) and (4A) of Section 21 of the MMDR Act provide for confiscation of any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle etc. involved in the commission of offence. Unlike Delhi Excise Act and the Rajasthan Excise Act, no bar has been created in any of the provisions of the MMDR Act to provide that no court shall have jurisdiction to make any order with regard to the property used in commission of any offence and seized under the MMDR Act. Neither MMDR Act nor RMMC Rules of 1986 has put any embargo on the jurisdiction of the Courts for releasing the property seized on account of its being found involved in the commission of any offence. As per sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the MMDR Act, the Court is competent to take cognizance and confiscate the aforesaid article/s, therefore that Court would also have jurisdiction to entertain an application for releasing the vehicle in accordance with the law. Learned counsel also referred to sub-rule (6) of Rule 48 of the RMMC Rules of 1986 and especially its proviso, to argue that the court is fully competent to pass appropriate order with regard to relese of the vehicle on ‘supurdaginama’. 6. Learned counsel also referred to sub-rule (6) of Rule 48 of the RMMC Rules of 1986 and especially its proviso, to argue that the court is fully competent to pass appropriate order with regard to relese of the vehicle on ‘supurdaginama’. 6. It is argued that in the case of the petitioner, the vehicles were seized by the police on 30.10.2017 in the F.I.R. No.448/2017 lodged at the Police Station Beawar Sadar for offence punishable under Sections 143, 341, 32, 353, 379, 392 IPC and Section 21 of the MMDR Act on 30.10.2017. Charge-sheet in the aforesaid F.I.R. has been filed by the investigating officer i.e. the S.H.O., Police Station Beawar Sadar along with the seizure memo of the vehicles belonging to the petitioner. The application seeking ‘supurdagi’ was filed on 17.11.2017 and till 17.11.2017 there was no complaint or report or proceedings of confiscation filed/initiated against the petitioner, who is not the accused in the F.I.R. but is the registered owner of the vehicle. Fourth proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 54 of the Rules of 2017 stipulates that where vehicle, equipment or mineral so seized is not released, the officer seizing the property or mineral shall make a report of such seizure within seventy two hours to his superior officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. If the vehicle is not released, then the officer seizing the vehicle is under obligation to make a report of such seizure within 72 hours to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. 7. Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, further argued that the Single Bench in the present case has wrongly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Narender, (2014) 13 SCC 100 . Section 61 of the Delhi Excise Act puts an embargo by providing that no court shall have jurisdiction to make any order with regard to such property. There is however no such similar provision in the MMDR Act and the RMMC Rules of 1986. It is submitted that in all the present set of cases, the F.I.Rs. have been lodged by different Police Stations and the vehicles have been seized by the police officials and that the charge-sheets have yet not been filed. There is however no such similar provision in the MMDR Act and the RMMC Rules of 1986. It is submitted that in all the present set of cases, the F.I.Rs. have been lodged by different Police Stations and the vehicles have been seized by the police officials and that the charge-sheets have yet not been filed. If the vehicles are not released on ‘supurdaginama’ and are allowed to lie out in open place with the police stations, they are most likely to get damaged on account of exposure to sun, rain and dust etc. Learned counsel further argued that the vehicles belonging to the petitioner are lying at the Police Station since last more than four months which is in contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Sundarbhai Amba Lal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, in which it has been held that the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. 8. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, has also relied on judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Awadhesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. - Manu/UP/1525/2015, and that of this Court in Shakir Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4389/2016 (decided on 26.09.2016), Shoukat Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6307/2016 (decided on 22.02.2017), Mahendra Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4554/2016 (decided on 26.04.2017), Naga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.422/2014 (decided on 17.07.2017), Jagrag Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2802/2015 (decided on 19.05.2017) and Phool Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2682/2012 (decided on 14.08.2012). 9. Learned counsel therefore submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as also this Court, the Judicial Magistrate must be held competent to release the vehicles on ‘supurdaginama’ by recourse of Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2682/2012 (decided on 14.08.2012). 9. Learned counsel therefore submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as also this Court, the Judicial Magistrate must be held competent to release the vehicles on ‘supurdaginama’ by recourse of Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that correct proposition of law has been laid down in Ramswaroop’s case and Malaram’s case that a Judicial Magistrate is barred from exercising jurisdiction under Section 451 and/or 457 of the Cr.P.C. in ordering interim custody of vehicle seized on account of its being found involved in commission of the offence under the provisions of the MMDR Act and the RMMC Rules of 1986 made by the State Government thereunder. The Parliament in its wisdom has enacted the MMDR Act with the object to provide for the development and regulation of Mines & Minerals. Section 4(1) thereof prohibits any mining operations except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of reconnaissance permit or a prospecting license, or as the case may be, of a mining lease granted under the MMDR Act and the RMMC Rules of 1986 framed thereunder. Sub-Section (1A) of Section 4 of the MMDR Act further prohibits transportation or storage of any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 21(4) and 21(4A) of the MMDR Act provide penalty for violation of the provisions of the MMDR Act. Section 23A of the MMDR Act provides for compounding of offences either before or after the institution of prosecution. The State Government by virtue of its power conferred on it by Section 15 of the MMDR Act had earlier framed the RMMC Rules of 1986. Rule 48 thereof deals with offences, penalties and prosecutions. As per the mandate of Rule 48(7) of the RMMC Rules of 1986, all properties seized under this Rule shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of Magistrate trying the offence, if the rent, royalty or tax or/and cost of the mineral as mentioned above, are not paid by the trespasser within a period of three months from the date of commission of such offence or when the recoveries are not effected by that time. The RMMC Rules of 1986 have been repealed and replaced by the Rules of 2017 with effect from 01.03.2017. Rule 54 thereof deals with illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals. Rule 57 deals with role of the police and Rule 58 deals with investigation of offences. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that a conjoint reading of Section 21(4A) of the MMDR Act read with Rule 48(7) of the RMMC Rules of 1986 and Rule 54(6) of the Rules of 2017 clearly reveal the intent of the legislature and the rule making authority that the inevitable consequence of the seizure of any vehicle or any other thing seized for violation of Section 54(1) or 4(1A) of the MMDR Act or the Rules made thereunder, would be its eventual confiscation by an order of Magistrate. An exception, however, has been carved out that in the event of deposition of 10 times of royalty in lieu of cost of mineral, rent, royalty, compensation for environment degradation and tax chargeable on the land occupied without lawful authority within a period of three months from the date of commission of such offence, all properties seized shall be ordered to be released and shall be handed over to the trespasser/owner of the property. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General argued whether a statute is mandatory or not depends upon the intent of the legislature. The meaning and intention of the legislature must govern, and thus are to be ascertained, not only from the phraseology of the provision, but also by considering its nature and design and the consequences which would follow from construing it one way or the other. Under the Rules of 2017 no power has been given to the officers seizing the property under Rule 54 to release the same on execution of a bond, which demonstrates the intent of the Rules making authority. The same being in consonance with the provisions of the MMDR Act cannot be defeated by release of such vehicle on ‘supurdagi’ under the provisions of Section 451 and/or Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. 12. The object of the mining laws will be defeated if the vehicles seized for violation of the provisions of the MMDR Act and RMMC Rules. The same being in consonance with the provisions of the MMDR Act cannot be defeated by release of such vehicle on ‘supurdagi’ under the provisions of Section 451 and/or Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. 12. The object of the mining laws will be defeated if the vehicles seized for violation of the provisions of the MMDR Act and RMMC Rules. Thus, the vehicles or any properties seized under the provisions of the MMDR Act or RMMC Rules, which are liable to be confiscated by order of the Magistrate, cannot be released on ‘supurdagi’ under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. 13. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and carefully studied the precedents cited at the bar. 14. Learned Single Judge in making present reference has, apart from taking note of the conflict between two set of judgments by different Single Benches of this Court, also referred to the judgment in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Narender, (2014) 13 SCC 100 , by observing that the Supreme Court, while dealing with the pari materia provision of Delhi Excise Act, 2009, especially Section 61 thereof, held that that provision bars a criminal court to make order with regard to release of the property used in committing the offence under the Act. A careful reading of the MMDR Act shows that there is no provision therein which is in pari materia with or similar to Section 61 of the Delhi Excise Act, that was considered by the Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Narender, supra. Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act provides penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, sale, etc. of any intoxicant and Section 58 of the said Act which provides for confiscation of certain things used for carrying such intoxicants. Latter of this provision may be, to some extent, said to be similar to Section 21 of the MMDR Act. Apart from this, Section 59(1) of the Delhi Excise Act 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. 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. It is upon consideration of the said scheme of the Delhi Excise Act, and especially owing to consideration of bar contained in Section 61, that the Supreme Court in para 11 of the report, held thus:- “11. 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.” 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.” 15. In taking that view, the Supreme Court also relied on its earlier judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. K.A. Kunchindammed, (2002) 9 SCC 90 , in which the Supreme Court in para 23 of the judgment held as under:- “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 CrPC 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. 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.” 16. However, there is no pari materia or similar provision in the whole of the MMDR Act giving overriding effect to its provision over those of the Cr.P.C. or otherwise creating any embargo on the powers of the Magistrate/the Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure to deal with the application under Section 451/457 for release of the vehicle etc. 17. MMDR Act has been enacted with a view to provide for development and regulation of mines and minerals. Section 4 of the MMDR Act ordains 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. Sub-section (1A) of Section 4 provides that 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. Section 21 of the MMDR Act deals with penalties. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the MMDR Act provides that 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 thousand rupees per hectare of the mined area, or with both. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the MMDR Act provides that 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 thousand rupees per hectare of the mined area, or with both. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 further provides 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, the same shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially empowered in this behalf. Sub-section (4A) of Section 21 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. 18. The legislative policy, as seen from the aforesaid provisions is that if the vehicle without any lawful authority is found to be carrying any mineral, the same shall not only be liable to be seized but also confiscated. While the power of seizure has been conferred on an officer and authority specially empowered in this behalf, the power to make confiscation has been vested in the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under subsection (1) of Section 21. Section 15 of the MMDR Act refers to the power of the State Government to make Rules, for regulating the grant of quarry. It is in exercise of this power that the State Government promulgated the RMMC Rules of 1986. Chapter-VI of the RMMC Rules, 1986 (amended up to May 16, 2016) deals with offences, penalties and prosecutions. The first proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 48 of the Rules of 1986 empowers the authorities mentioned in sub-rule (4) to seize the vehicle etc if found involved in unlawful mining activities in contravention of the terms and conditions of granting lease/quarry license, short term permit or any other permit. The first proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 48 of the Rules of 1986 empowers the authorities mentioned in sub-rule (4) to seize the vehicle etc if found involved in unlawful mining activities in contravention of the terms and conditions of granting lease/quarry license, short term permit or any other permit. Where, however, mineral has been dispatched or consumed, the authorities mentioned in sub-rule (4) have been empowered to recover the costs of such rent, royalty on the land occupied or mineral excavated, which will be computed as royalty payable at prevalent rates. Second proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 48 stipulates that every officer seizing any property or mineral under this rule shall give a receipt thereof and shall make a report of such seizure to his superior officer or Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area to try offence. Sub-rule (6) of the Rule 48, however, confers power on the officer, who seizes the property in execution of a bond by the trespasser or the owner of the property or any other person to the satisfaction of such officer that the property so released shall be produced at the time and at the place when such production is required by such officer. This is, however, subject to a rider contained in proviso thereto that where a report has been made to the Magistrate under sub-rule (5), the property shall be released only under the orders of the Magistrate. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 48 further provides that all property seized under this rule shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of Magistrate trying the offence if the rent, royalty or tax or/and cost of the mineral as mentioned above, are not paid by the trespasser within a period of three months from the date of commission of such offence or when the recoveries are not effected by the time. The proviso to sub-rule (7) of Rule 48, however, stipulates that on payment of these dues within the said period of three months all properties seized shall be ordered to be released and shall be handed over to the trespasser/owner of the property. 19. The RMMC Rules of 1986 were substituted by the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2017’), which were promulgated on 28.02.2017. Chapter X of the Rules of 2017 deals with the offences, penalties and prosecution. 19. The RMMC Rules of 1986 were substituted by the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2017’), which were promulgated on 28.02.2017. Chapter X of the Rules of 2017 deals with the offences, penalties and prosecution. Rule 54 of the Rules of 2017 contains provisions substantially similar to those of Rule 48 of the RMMC Rules of 1986 but this Rule has now apparently made certain changes. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 54 provides that whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-rule (1) and (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine, which may extend to five lacs rupees, or with both. However, a power has been conferred on the named authorities in the proviso thereto that anyone of them may either before or after institution of the prosecution, compound the offence committed in contravention of the sub-rule (1) and (2) on payment of cost of mineral and compound fee, as mentioned therein. But the note therebelow provides that cost of the mineral shall be taken as ten times of royalty in lieu of rent, royalty, compensation for environmental degradation and tax chargeable on the land occupied without lawful authority etc. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 54 further provides that whenever any person, without a lawful authority, apart from other things, bring on the land any tool, equipment, vehicle or other thing, the same along with mineral, if any, may be seized by the authorities mentioned in sub-rule (4), who shall give a receipt to the person from whose possession the property or mineral is seized. First proviso to sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 54 of the RMMC Rules of 2017, however, made a substantial deviation from the earlier position. 20. First proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 54 provides that every officer seizing any property or mineral under this rule may handover the property or mineral so seized to the nearest police station or police chauki. The first proviso to sub-rule (6) provides that on payment of these dues within the said period of three months, all properties seized shall be ordered to be released and shall be handed over to the trespasser or the owner of the property. The first proviso to sub-rule (6) provides that on payment of these dues within the said period of three months, all properties seized shall be ordered to be released and shall be handed over to the trespasser or the owner of the property. There is thus deviation from the earlier position obtaining in Rule 48 of the RMMC Rules of 1986, by stipulating in the first proviso to Rule 54(5), supra, that the officer concerned may handover the property or mineral so seized to the nearest police station or police chauki. Second proviso to Rule 54(5) is to the effect that the seized property may be released after deposition of cost of mineral along with the compound fees as specified in sub-rule (3). Third proviso to Rule 54(5) provides that if the mineral has already been dispatched or consumed, the authorities mentioned in sub-rule (3) shall recover cost of mineral along with the compound fees as specified therein. Fourth proviso to Rule 54(5) provides that where vehicle, equipment or mineral so seized is not released, the officer seizing the property or mineral shall make a report of such seizure, within seventy two hours to his superior officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Therefore a discretion has been conferred on the seizing officer to handover the vehicle, which is what we are concerned in the present case, to the nearest police station or police chauki or otherwise release the same on deposition of the cost of mineral along-with compounding fee referred to therein as per prescription made in sub-rule (3) of Rule 54 and if the vehicle is not released by him, then to simultaneously make a report thereof within seventy two hours to his superior officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, which provision was also therein proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 48 of the RMMC Rules of 1986. The difference which is now found in the fourth proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 54 of the RMMC Rules of 2017 is that such report shall be made to superior officer and also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction within seventy two hours. The obvious purpose for this deviation is that a vehicle should not remain under the control of the seizing officer/the officers of the Mining Department for an unduly long period of time. The obvious purpose for this deviation is that a vehicle should not remain under the control of the seizing officer/the officers of the Mining Department for an unduly long period of time. This clearly indicates intention of the rule making authority that the officer of the mining department would have power to release the vehicle on conditions enumerated therein, however, if no one approaches him within seventy two hours, he “shall make a report of such seizure” to “his superior officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction”. In other words, he would retain the power to release the vehicle himself until the expiry of seventy two hours, where after he is mandatorily required to report the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. In that event, only the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence shall have power to release the vehicle. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 54 of the Rules of 2017 in this behalf provides that all property seized under this Rule shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of Magistrate if the amount equal to ten times of royalty in lieu of cost of mineral, rent, royalty, compensation for environmental degradation and tax chargeable on the land occupied without lawful authority, etc. is not paid by the trespasser within a period of three months from the date of commission of such offence or when the recoveries are not affected by that time. But proviso to Rule 54(5) stipulates that on payment of these dues within the said period of three months, all properties seized shall be ordered to be released and shall be handed over to the trespasser or the owner of the property. 21. Most of the judgments cited by learned counsel appearing from the side of the petitioners have ruled in favour of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to release the vehicles under the provisions of Section 451 and/or 457 of the Cr.P.C. A discordant note has however been sounded by Single Bench judgment in Ramswaroop’s case, which was later followed in Mala Ram’s, supra. These judgments, in view of the analysis of law which we have made herein-above, do not lay down correct law. In fact, the same Single Judge, who delivered the judgment in Ramswaroop’s case on 28.08.2015, in his earlier judgment dated 26.10.2012 in Muknaram Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Misc. These judgments, in view of the analysis of law which we have made herein-above, do not lay down correct law. In fact, the same Single Judge, who delivered the judgment in Ramswaroop’s case on 28.08.2015, in his earlier judgment dated 26.10.2012 in Muknaram Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3285/2012, had held that in a case in which offence has already been compounded by the competent authority and an amount has been imposed as compounding fees and the same has not been paid or deposited by the person concerned, for the purpose of recovery or realization of the same, a condition can be imposed by the Court while ordering release of the vehicle to pay or deposit the same and the Court can refuse to release the seized vehicle even temporarily under Section 457 Cr.P.C., if such deposit is not made. 22. 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. 23. We accordingly answer the reference. 24. Office to place a copy of this judgment in all connected files. 25. Matters may now be placed before the concerned Bench for appropriate orders.