Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1627 (RAJ)

Valaram v. State, Through PP

2019-05-23

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salumber, District Udaipur in Criminal Revision No. 20/2019 upholding the order dated 03.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Salumber, District Udaipur in FIR No. 25/2019, Police Station Gingla, District Udaipur whereby learned trial court directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,26,400/- for release of vehicle i.e. tractor along with trolley bearing registration No. RJ-27-RB-4373 on supurdginama. 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 v. State of Rajasthan, a Division Bench of this Court on 06.04.2018, 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. The orders passed by two courts below whereby release of the vehicle on Supurdagi was refused have been assailed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the tractor along with trolley and the same is case property. The orders passed by two courts below whereby release of the vehicle on Supurdagi was refused have been assailed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the tractor along with trolley and the same is case property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to refute the above position. 7. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the tractor along with trolley bearing registration No. RJ-27-RB-4373 on supurdginama seized as case property by imposing following conditions:- (a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification. (b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle 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. 8. Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle.