Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 822 (JHR)

Tuleshwar Mehta v. State of Jharkhand

2023-06-30

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Vide order dated 15.12.2022, the respondent-State was directed to file counter affidavit and in spite of that, counter affidavit has not been filed. 3. Further, it appears that this case is covered in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Cr..M.P. No.1332 of 2020, dated 11.05.2022. In that view of the matter, with consent of the parties, this petition is being heard on merit. 4. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.2936 of 2020 (arising out of Tamar P.S. Case No.01 of 2020) by which the petition filed by the petitioner for release of his truck bearing Registration No.JH-02-AC-4880 has been rejected. The prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.25 of 2022. The prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Confiscation Case No.29 of 2020-21. The prayer is also made for direction upon the respondents to release the said truck. 5. Tamar P.S. Case No.01 of 2020 has been registered on the basis of the written application submitted by the then District Mining Officer, Ranchi, wherein, it has been alleged that in course of inspection, 5 vehicles loaded with coal, 7 vehicles loaded with sand and 2 JCB machines have been seized and it was found that mining transit challan produced by the drivers was found to be genuine, whereas, transit challan produced by the driver of vehicle no. JH-02S-4522 and JH-02-AC-4880 were found to be genuine, but the time has expired and accordingly the vehicles have been seized and details of all the vehicles have been given in the FIR and seizure list thereof has been prepared which clearly goes to show that the truck of this petitioner was carrying coal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the truck of the petitioner was carrying coal on the basis of valid documents. He further submits that some delay has occurred in payment while taking diesel from Mansarovar Service Station, Demotand. He also submits that, however, a petition for release of the vehicle and for release of the coal was filed by the petitioner which was rejected and subsequently affirmed in the criminal revision. He further submits that some delay has occurred in payment while taking diesel from Mansarovar Service Station, Demotand. He also submits that, however, a petition for release of the vehicle and for release of the coal was filed by the petitioner which was rejected and subsequently affirmed in the criminal revision. He submits that he is not claiming release of coal. He further submits that this vehicle is commercial in nature and the trial has not been concluded as yet. He further submits that there is provision of confiscation of the seized article in terms of Section 21(4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. He further submits that confiscation is required to be done once the trial is concluded and the petitioner is found to be guilty in the trial. He also submits that in view of amendment in Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 which was incorporated in Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. By virtue Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner is required to pay the double amount of the minerals and the goods in question can be released. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that in light of Rule 54(5) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner is the owner of the minerals and he is required to pay the double amount of minerals and the arrangement has been granted in the said Rule how to deposit. He further submits that for release of the vehicle, the petitioner is required to follow the procedure as an interim measure. 8. Since the petitioner is not claiming the coal, there is no need to deposit the double amount if the coal in question is not being claimed by the petitioner. For the sake of convenience, Section 21(4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957) is quoted hereinbelow: “21.(4-A) Any mineral, took, 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.” 9. On plain reading of this provision, it is clear that the word used “vehicle or anything seized”, literally the use of word, in the section that any vehicle or anything seized shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance, and at the stage it is found, the section connotes that a finding has to be arrived that the vehicle was used for transportation of coal or mineral in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Such finding can only be arrived if it is brought on record during the enquiry or trial meaning thereby that the charges/allegations have to be proved that the vehicle was used in contravention of the provisions of the Act whereafter the vehicle will be forfeited by the State Government by order of the court. Moreover, the vehicle is lying at the police station without any use in an uncared manner. On plain reading of the above provision, it is crystal clear from (whenever a vehicle is found to have been used ........”) and it further says that the vehicle should be forfeited to the State Government by order of the court, meaning thereby once the trial is concluded and the conviction is held by the trial court then only the forfeiture of the vehicle will come in to effect. The vehicle in question is commercial as indicated and this aspect of the matter has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat; [(2002) 10 SCC 283]. Paragraph nos.5 and 17 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: "5. Section 451 clearly empowers the court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as: (1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial; (2) to order it to be said or otherwise disposed of, after recording such (3) If the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, the dispose of the same. 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles." 10. In view of the above facts and settled law, the detention of the vehicle is of no use as it will not only lead to damage and loss of utility of the vehicle but will also cause a loss of revenue to the Government due to non-pliancy of the commercial vehicle. 11. The trial court is directed to grant interim custody of the vehicle bearing Registration No. JH-02AC-4880 by ordering it to be released in favour of the petitioner on his giving an undertaking on the following terms and conditions: (i) The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond to the tune of rupees as disclosed in the Insurance paper assessing the value of the vehicle in question with two sureties. (ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a commercial vehicle of District-Ranchi. (iii) That the petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle on hire purchase agreement in any manner. (iv) He shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner, and (v) He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the trial court. 12. The trial court is at liberty to impose any other terms and condition as the trial court may deems it fit and proper. 13. With the above direction, the impugned orders dated 07.10.2021, 21.03.2022 and 04.01.2021 are hereby set aside. 14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.