Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 210 (RAJ)

Shiv Ram Gurjar v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-01-27

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. All these petitions relate to the prayer for release of tractors and trolleys, which have been seized by the Police Authorities/Mining Authorities/Forest Officials for various reasons including carrying "bazri", by way of illegal mining in Rajasthan and selling out the same etc. and have been filed against the order passed by the concerned Magistrate whereby application under Section 451 & 457 Cr.P.C for releasing of tractor and trolley was rejected and in some cases affirmed in revision also and therefore, the same are being heard together. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgments passed by this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2723/2019 (Asharam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & connected misc. petitions) decided by common order dated 3.2.2020, S. B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) NO.2687/2020 (Nandlal Vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 1.10.2020, in the case of Nathulal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2755/2020) decided on 1.10.2020, which also took into consideration the interim order passed in PIL "Khem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan", (D.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.4239/2019) as well as judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat: (2002) 10 SCC 283, submitted that the vehicles be released on appropriate terms and conditions. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed these criminal misc. petitions. 4. The issue is no more res-integra in light of judgments passed by this Court in cases of Asharam (supra), Nandlal (supra), Nathulal (supra), Khem Singh (supra) and judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra). 5. Keeping in view the law as noticed herein above and the fact that no confiscation order has been passed till date for illegal mining and that the imposition of fine or penalty would be on the person (owner) and not on the vehicle, this court is inclined to follow the view taken in Asharam's case (supra). 6. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and the orders impugned herein passed by the learned Court below are quashed and set aside. The tractor and trolley as mentioned in these petitions as per Schedule-A annexed to this order shall be released as per the conditions laid down in Para 14(a) to (f) of Asharam's case (supra). 7. 6. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and the orders impugned herein passed by the learned Court below are quashed and set aside. The tractor and trolley as mentioned in these petitions as per Schedule-A annexed to this order shall be released as per the conditions laid down in Para 14(a) to (f) of Asharam's case (supra). 7. However, it is made clear that if vehicle(s) has been confiscated under the relevant provisions of the Act, then said vehicle(s) shall not be released by the concerned Magistrate keeping in view of law laid down in the case of Laxman Versus State of Rajasthan: DB Criminal Misc. Petition No.60/2018 decided on 6.4.2018. 8. In view thereof, all these criminal misc. petitions are allowed with aforesaid directions.