Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 703 (TS)

Gaddam Yellaiah v. State of Telangana

2024-09-09

K.SUJANA

body2024
ORDER: K. Sujana, J. This Criminal Petition is filed against the order, dated 22.08.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.207 of 2024 in Crime No.148 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Husnabad (for short, ‘trial Court’), seeking to release the said vehicle i.e., Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.TS-36-T-9314 and TS-36-T-9315 involved in the commission of offence in Cr.No.148 of 2024 of Koheda Police Station, Siddipet District, punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (for short, PDPP’) Act, 2023. The above petition is filed under Section 497 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) was dismissed on the ground that the accused used the subject vehicle in committing the same offence in several criminal cases. 2. Heard Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s vehicle has been seized and lying in the custody of the learned trial Court, which is exposed to natural calamities and if the same is kept idle, there is every chance that the vehicle will get damaged as a result of which the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. Due to the seizure of his vehicle, the petitioner is subjected to mental trauma. The petitioner is an innocent and law abiding citizen. If the said vehicle is not released, the petitioner will be put to severe hardship and irreparable loss. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 19.02.2015, the vehicle involved for illegal transport of sand without prior permission from the concerned authorities shall be released on payment of penalty for the vehicle and the vehicle involved in the same offence in several crime cases, such vehicle/machinery along with sand shall be seized/confiscated by the concerned officer in the State. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order and to release the said vehicle till decision of the confiscation is taken by the Court or by authorities concerned as per the said G.O. Therefore, the said vehicle may be returned to the petitioner, who is ready to give an undertaking and also a personal bond, and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition. 5. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that if the said vehicle is released, the petitioner will again involve in the same offence and further the said vehicle is involved in the same offence in similar cases. Due to the illegalities committed by the petitioner, the entire environment is very much affected. Under Section 21(4A) in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act, 1957’), the specifically authorized competent Court to complete the confiscation proceedings. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on record, the said vehicle is involved in mining and transporting the sand illegally. Registering the Criminal Case will make little impact. The alternative scheme of confiscation proceedings has been provided to overcome the adverse consequences resulting in delay for disposal of the criminal prosecutions involving confiscation. The confiscation of the said vehicle is one of the effective tool for protecting the illegal mining and preserving the environment and under Section 21 (4A) of the Act, 1957, the Court taking cognizance of the offence can confiscate. The Criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings are parallel proceedings and having distinct purpose and object. The same was dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer v. G.V.Sudhakar Rao (1985) 4 SCC 573 . The relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows:- “Criminal prosecution is distinct from confiscation proceedings. The two proceedings are different and parallel, each having a distinct purpose. The object of confiscation proceeding is to enable speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of the produce and the means used for committing the offence while the object of the prosecution is to punish the offender. The scheme of the Adhiniyam prescribes an independent procedure for confiscation. The intention of prescribing separate proceedings is to provide a deterrent mechanism and to stop further misuse of the vehicle.” 7. In spite of the stringent provisions available, illegal mining activities increased. Section 21 (4A) of the Act, 1957 shows that the duty is cast upon the Investigating Officer or officers concerned who seized the vehicle to initiate the confiscation proceedings before the trial Court. If the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the petition under Section 497 of BNSS Act, 2023 to seek interim custody is not maintainable. Section 21 (4A) of the Act, 1957 shows that the duty is cast upon the Investigating Officer or officers concerned who seized the vehicle to initiate the confiscation proceedings before the trial Court. If the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the petition under Section 497 of BNSS Act, 2023 to seek interim custody is not maintainable. From the view law laid down in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh, 2020 12 SCC 733 , it is clear that in the absence of initiation of the confiscation proceedings, the petition under Section 497 BNSS Act, 2023, to seek interim custody of the said vehicle is maintainable. 8. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will not use the subject vehicle for illegal transportation of sand in future, the Criminal petition is liable to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed with the following conditions: (i) The trial Court is directed to release the said vehicle i.e., Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.TS-36-T-9314 and TS-36-T-9315 to the petitioner and the petitioner shall execute a bond to the value of the said vehicle mentioned in the insurance certificate existed on the date of occurrence and also the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the credit of crime No.148 of 2024. On such deposit, the trial Court shall re-deposit the same in any one of the nationalized bank in the interest bearing account. (ii) The petitioner shall file an affidavit with specific undertaking that he shall not involve in any illegal mining or any other offence and vehicle also will not be used in illegal mining or any other offence. (iii) The photographs of the said vehicle is to be taken properly and the petitioner shall produce the said vehicle as and when required by the trial Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle till the disposal of confiscation proceedings. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.