Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1825 (RAJ)

Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2021-09-24

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 03.08.2021 & 15.09.2021 passed by learned Court below, may kindly be quashed and set aside and grant the custody of the vehicle No.(RJ22GA4346) to the petitioner on Superdginama." 3. While taking into consideration the contextual facts of this case and upon a perusal of the record, this Court finds that the present case is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3595/2021, decided alongwith other connected petitions, on 15.09.2021), relevant portion of which reads as under: "21. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedents laws cited by learned counsel the parties, this Court finds that the core law has already been substantially explained in the judgment of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. (supra), as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has while delivering the said judgment, kept into consideration the practical difficulties of holding the vehicles, and has also considered that the same ought to be released, while imposing or without imposing appropriate compensation/compounding fee, to be paid by the registered owner of the respective vehicle. 22. In the precedent law of Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambal Abhyaran v. Narottam Singh (supra), as cited by learned Additional Government Counsel for the State, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically dealt with the issues of the law pertaining to release of vehicles, and has clearly observed that once the confiscation proceedings have been initiated, any orders for possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property ought not to be passed. Thus, the confiscation proceedings have been taken at a different pedestal, as per the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, which is now law of the land. 23. Thus, the confiscation proceedings have been taken at a different pedestal, as per the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, which is now law of the land. 23. It is needless to say that the second important reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench Laxman v. State of Rajasthan (supra), in which the Hon'ble Division Bench has categorically laid down that the jurisdiction of the magistrate to release the vehicles under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. is alive with or without imposition of compensation/compounding fee. 24. The judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Irfan v. State of Rajasthan has reiterated most of the laws pertaining to release of vehicles, at length. 25. This Court, on a careful examination of the precedent laws in an intricate manner, finds that the precedent laws of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (supra) and Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambal Abhyaran v. Narottam Singh (supra) , as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, shall govern the field, and thus, the vehicles seized under the mining law and the forest law, shall be released, upon charging the compensation/compounding fee or without charging the compensation/compounding fee, only and only, if the confiscation proceedings in regard thereto have not been initiated by the State authorities. It is to be noted that both mining and the forest laws have the provisions for confiscation proceedings. 26. It is also observed that until the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the Magistrate concerned shall have the power to release the vehicle(s) with or without condition of deposition of compensation/compounding fee, but the Magistrate concerned shall be required to impose a condition of furnishing of a bank guarantee, so as to secure the compensation/compounding fee, if required to be levied in future, after completion of the proceedings. 27. It is made clear that once the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property cannot be made, in view of the law laid down in Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambal Abhyaran v. Narottam Singh (supra). 28. 27. It is made clear that once the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property cannot be made, in view of the law laid down in Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambal Abhyaran v. Narottam Singh (supra). 28. Thus, while parting with the present controversy, it is directed that all the police stations shall release the vehicles in question, may it be tractor, trolley, truck, dumper to the registered owners of the said vehicles, after confirming from the respective Department that there is no confiscation proceeding, under the mining or forest laws, going on in regard to the vehicles in question. 29. To ensure that after undergoing the proceedings, the concerned parties i.e. registered owners of the vehicles in question shall be paying the requisite compensation/compounding fee, it is directed that the active bank guarantee, equivalent to the compensation/compounding fee, shall be deposited by the registered owners before the trial court before release of the vehicles in question. 30. It is also directed that after such bank guarantee equivalent to the compensation/compounding fee is deposited before the trial court concerned, to which the concerned police station is attached, the trial court concerned shall be required to keep such bank guarantees intact, until the final conclusion of the proceedings; and until the final conclusion of such proceedings is done by the competent courts, the bank guarantee shall remain subject to it and the orders passed at the end of the proceedings by the concerned trial court shall govern disposal of the bank guarantee. 31. It is further made clear that the petitioners shall be required to furnish photographs of their respective vehicles, showing their numbers, colours etc. Furthermore, at the time of release of the vehicles in question, the petitioners shall give an undertaking before the concerned learned trial court alongwith bank guarantee, as directed, that they shall not use such vehicles for any illegal and unlawful purpose, and in case any second offence, by means of the vehicles, is made out, then the same shall not be released, on any condition, until the confiscation proceedings come to an end. 32. 32. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 12.02.2021 & 09.07.2021 (CRLMP No.3595/2021), 18.08.2020 & 16.09.2020 (CRLMP No.3139/2020), 26.11.2019 & 19.02.2020 (CRLW No.94/2021), 09.12.2020 & 24.12.2020 (CRLMP No.828/2021), 13.01.2021 & 25.01.2021 (CRLMP No.1017/2021), 24.09.2020 & 16.01.2021 (CRLMP No.1028/2021), 07.09.2020 & 23.12.2020 (CRLMP No.1047/2021), 14.07.2020 (CRLMP No.1793/2021), 23.04.2021 & 11.05.2021 (CRLMP No.2689/2021), 16.04.2021 & 18.05.2021 (CRLMP No.2775/2021), 24.07.2020, 01.03.2021 & 11.05.2021 (CRLMP No.2776/2021), 20.04.2021 & 18.05.2021 (CRLMP No.2780/2021), 03.03.2021 (CRLMP No.3223/2021), 03.03.2021 (CRLMP No.3224/2021), 03.03.2021 (CRLMP No.3225/2021), 03.12.2020 (CRLMP No.3428/2021), 01.07.2021 (CRLMP No.3453/2021), 01.07.2021 (CRLMP No.3454/2021), 01.07.2021 (CRLMP No.3455/2021), 05.07.2021 (CRLMP No.3510/2021), 12.02.2021 & 09.07.2021 (CRLMP No.3618/2021), 20.07.2021 (CRLMP No.3706/2021), 23.06.2021 & 19.07.2021 (CRLMP No.3956/2021), 06.07.2021 & 12.07.2021 (CRLMP No.4173/2021), 30.06.2021 & 06.08.2021 (CRLMP No.4566/2021), 07.12.2019 & 15.01.2020 (CRLMP No.2651/2020), 07.05.2021 & 07.08.2021 (CRLMP No.4550/2021) and 06.07.2021 & 03.08.2021 (CRLMP No.4554/2021) are quashed and set aside, only to the extent, they are not conformity with this judgment. 33. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petitions stand disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of. 4. In light of the aforequoted judgment, the impugned orders dated 03.08.2021 & 15.09.2021 passed by the learned courts below are quashed and set aside. It is needless to say that the observations made and the directions given in the aforequoted judgment shall operate in the present case also. 5. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of.