Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1319 (JHR)

Lakshman Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2023-11-06

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Omiya Anusha, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.05.2022 passed in Confiscation Case No. 35/2021-22 by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, whereby, the vehicles bearing registration Nos. BR-11GA-2568, BR-38G-9717 and RJ-14GG-2415 have been directed to be confiscated and the said order was challenged by the petitioners in Revision Case No. 39/2023 before the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, which is still pending. 3. The FIR was lodged on the self statement of the District Mining Officer wherein it was alleged that on 25.09.2021 at about 11:30 hours, he got a secret information that a truck loaded with stone having no documents apprehended on the spot and three trucks were seized and hence, the said FIR was lodged at Muffasil Police Station, District-Sahibganj. 4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the said revision case, the order of confiscation of the vehicles in question has been passed. He further submits that the petitioners are the real and absolute owner of the truck bearing Registration Nos. BR-11GA-2568, BR-38G-9717 and RJ-14GG-2415. He submits that on 31.07.2021, respondent no. 3 has referred this matter to respondent no. 2 for confiscation of the said vehicles of the petitioners under Section 11(v) of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 on which respondent no. 2 has initiated Confiscation Case No. 35/2021-22 against these petitioners. He further submits that by the impugned order dated 20.05.2022, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj directed to confiscate the vehicles in question. He submits that the petitioners have already preferred the criminal revision, which is still pending. He submits that the order of confiscation has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, which is without jurisdiction. He refers to Sub-section (4-A) of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and submits that seized vehicles shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the competent Court to take cognizance. He further refers Section 22 of the said Act, 1957 and submits that in view of that, the cognizance can be taken on a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf, which is lacking in the case in hand as the FIR has been registered. He further refers Section 22 of the said Act, 1957 and submits that in view of that, the cognizance can be taken on a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf, which is lacking in the case in hand as the FIR has been registered. He further submits that if the said Act is involved, only Special Court can proceed with the matter. He further refers to Section 30-B of the said Act, 1957 and submits that the constitution of Special Courts are provided therein. He submits that Section 30-C of the said Act, 1957 speaks of Special Courts' power. He further submits that in view of the amendment in Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the same was incorporated in Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 by virtue of Rule-13 thereof and, therefore, an appropriate order can be passed by this Court. He submits that there is no bar in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 for releasing the vehicles and the minerals in the Statute, however, in the other Statute i.e. the Indian Forest Act, there is direct bar under Section 52(c) of the said Act. He further submits that Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 speaks of releasing of the seized minerals by way of depositing double amount of the minerals in question. He submits that the petitioners have already deposited the double amount of the minerals in question. He further submits that the petitioners are ready to face the trial. On these grounds, he submits that an appropriate order may kindly be passed for release of the vehicles in question. 5. Ms. Omiya Anusha, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners are having alternative remedy. She submits that in view of Rule 11 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, the officers are authorised to stop, check, search and verify at any vehicles carrying the minerals from the mine. She submits that the competent authority has seized the vehicles in question under Rule 11 of the said Rules, 2017. She further submits that there is provision of an appeal in view of Rule 14 of the said Rules, 2017 and Rule 15 of the said Rules speaks of revision. She submits that the competent authority has seized the vehicles in question under Rule 11 of the said Rules, 2017. She further submits that there is provision of an appeal in view of Rule 14 of the said Rules, 2017 and Rule 15 of the said Rules speaks of revision. She submits that if the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order, the petitioners can prefer revision before the competent authority in view of Rule 15 of the said Rules, 2017. On these grounds, she submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the order. She submits that this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the impugned order and finds that admittedly Sahibganj (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 136/2021 was registered against these petitioners under Section 175, 379 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 21(1), 21(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 4/54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. In view of the said Act, 1957, only complaint can be entertained, whereas, an FIR was registered in the present case. The learned Court has still not taken cognizance, as has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and he has submitted that the petitioners are ready to face the trial, however, vehicles in question are being deteriorated day by day as vehicles stand in open in the concerned Police Station. 7. Sub-Section (4-A) of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is quoted herein-below: “21. (4-A) 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 sub-section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court.” 8. Looking into the above provision, it is crystal clear that any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle can be confiscated by an order of the Court competent to take cognizance. 9. Section 22 of the said Act speaks of cognizance of offence, which is quoted herein-below: “22. Looking into the above provision, it is crystal clear that any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle can be confiscated by an order of the Court competent to take cognizance. 9. Section 22 of the said Act speaks of cognizance of offence, which is quoted herein-below: “22. No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.” 10. The above provision clearly speaks that the cognizance can be taken only on the complaint. 11. Further, Section 30-B of the said Act, 1957 speaks of constitution of Special Courts and Section 30-C of the said Act, 1957 speaks of Special Courts' power. 12. Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 is amended by Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017, which is quoted herein-below: ^^;fn fdlh okgu dk dksbZ pkyd y?kq [kfut dks ifjogu djrs le; l{ke inkf/kdkjh vFkok funs'kd] [kku vFkok vij funs'kd] [kku vFkok mi&funs'kd] [kku vFkok ftyk@lgk;d [kuu inkf/kdkjh vFkok lekgrkZ vFkok lekgrkZ ;k jkT; ljdkj }kjk Ákf/kd`r fdlh inkf/kdkjh dks Ái= ^,e* vFkok >kj[k.M [kfut leuqnku fu;ekoyh] 2004 ds vUrxZr QkeZ Mh esa ifjogu pkyku fn[kkus esa vlQy jgrk gS vFkok fujh{k.k ls bUdkj djrk gS] rks mls vf/kdre 01 o"kZ dh dSn vFkok [kfut e~Y; dh nksxquh jkf'k ds cjkcj n.M vFkok nksuksa ,d lkFk n.M fn;k tk ldrk gS rFkk nwljh ,oa rhljh ckj oS/k ifjogu pkyku ÁLrqr ugha fd, tkus ij mijksDr ds vfrfjDr n.M dh jkf'k Øe'k% 50]000-00 ¼ipkl gtkj :i;s ,oa 1]00]000@ ¼,d yk[k½ :i;s gksxh½A tk¡p djus okys inkf/kdkjh }kjk voS/k ifjogu djrs ik;s tkus ij okgu dks [kfut lfgr tIr fd;k tk,xk rFkk ftls fdlh ljdkjh Áfr"Bku esa vFkok LFkkuh; Fkkuk Ákax.k esa lqjf{kr j[kk tk,xkA l{ke inkf/kdkjh }kjk voS/k ifjogudrkZ ds mijksDr n.M 'kqYd ,oa bl vk'k; dk ca/ki= lefiZr fd, tkus ij fd U;k;ky; }kjk uksfVl fn, tkus ij mifLFkr gksaxs] okgu dks [kfut lfgr NksM+k tk ldrk gS] ijUrq voS/k ifjogudrkZ ij fu;ekuqdwy dkjZokbZ gsrq bldh lwpuk U;k;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh dks nh tk,xhA ca/ki= dk Ái= funs'kd] [kku }kjk vyx ls ifjpkfyr fd;k tk,xkA** 13. Looking to the above provision, it is crystal clear that upon deposition of double amount, seized minerals can be released in favour of the accused. Looking to the above provision, it is crystal clear that upon deposition of double amount, seized minerals can be released in favour of the accused. In the case in hand, double amount has already been deposited by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner, as has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 14. In view of the above, if the statute is there and certain procedures are prescribed therein, the same is required to be followed, which is lacking in the case in hand. 15. In view of the above facts, the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj in Confiscation Case No. 35/2021-22 is set aside. 16. On perusal of Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017, it transpires that the minerals can be released on payment of double amount of the cost of the minerals, to be deposited before the competent authority and the petitioners have already deposited double amount before the concerned authority, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 17. So far as the release of the vehicles bearing Registration Nos. BR-11GA-2568, BR-38G-9717 and RJ-14GG-2415 are concerned, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioners on their undertakings on the following terms and conditions: (i) The petitioners shall furnish indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the learned Court. (ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a commercial vehicle of District-Sahibganj (Jharkhand). (iii) The petitioners shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicles on hire purchase agreement or mortgage or in any manner. (iv) They shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicles in any manner. (v) They shall produce the vehicles as and when directed by the learned Trial Court. 18. The aforesaid conditions are subject to the final result of the criminal proceeding, which is pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in connection with Sahibganj (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 136/2021. 19. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.