Manoj Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for release of Pick-up, which was seized, while doing illegal mining.

The release of vehicle has been examined at length by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Versus State of Gujarat:

(2002) 10 SCC 283, which has been followed by this Court in Asharam Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2723/2019 along

with connected cases decided on 3.2.2020 and Nathulal Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2755/2020 decided on 01.10.2020.

In the case of Asharam (supra), the Court has held as under:

In the aforesaid background, this Court finds that while it is true that a vehicle should not be allowed to get rusted in Police Station and the same

ought to be released for its better maintenance and proper use. Several suggestions were given out by the Officers of the Transport Department as

well as by the Mining Department for laying down the conditions before release of the seized tractors, trolleys and vehicles being used for illegal

mining activities.

In Harun Versus State of Rajasthan: D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.76/2014 decided on 23.7.2015 along with connected matters by the Division

Bench of this Court wherein it has been held that if a vehicle is found to be involved in committing violation of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and

carrying forest produce, the same cannot be released during the pendency of trial on supurdgi to the registered owner of the vehicle, if proceedings of

confiscation have already been initiated. Relying upon the law laid down in Harun (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shoukat Khan Versus

State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.6307/2016, decided on 22.2.2017 has held that supurdginama can be given, if proceedings for

confiscation have been initiated. In Laxman Versus State of Rajasthan: D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.60/2018 decided on 6.4.2018 along with

connected matters by the Division Bench where a reference was made to the Division Bench on account of different opinion relating to the power of

release of vehicles wherein the Division Bench has held as under:

Most of the judgments cited by learned counsel appearing from the side of the petitioners have ruled in favour of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to

release the vehicles under the provisions of Section 451 and/or 457 of the Cr.P.C. A discordant note has however been sounded by Single Bench

judgment in Ramswaroop's case, which was later followed in Mala Ram's, supra. These judgments, in view of the analysis of law which we have

made herein-above, do not lay down correct law. In fact, the same Single Judge, who delivered the judgment in Ramswaroop's case on 28.08.2015, in

his earlier judgment dated 26.10.2012 in Muknaram Vs. State of Rajasthan -

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3285/2012, had held that in a case in which offence has already been compounded by the competent authority and an

amount has been imposed as compounding fees and the same has not been paid or deposited by the person concerned, for the purpose of recovery or

realization of the same, a condition can be imposed by the Court while ordering release of the vehicle to pay or deposit the same and the Court can

refuse to release the seized vehicle even temporarily under Section 457 Cr.P.C., if such deposit is not made. In view of the above discussion, the

referred questions are answered in the terms that once the Officer of the Mining Department, who seized the vehicle, has reported such seizure to his

Superior Officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease to have the power to release the vehicle, and in that event, the Magistrate

having jurisdiction would be empowered to release such vehicle, with or without the condition of deposit of compounding fee.

In view thereof, the power is vested with the concerned Magistrate for release of seized vehicle.

Keeping in view the above, as this Court notices that in none of the cases, the Mining Department has not initiated the confiscation proceedings, it

was submitted that compounding fee must be charged from the petitioners before release of the vehicle. However, this Court is of the view that the

compounding fee can only be charged, if it is adjudicated that the concerned vehicle was involved in the illegal activities, which can only be when trial

is completed. A presumption in this regard cannot be taken at the present stage.

In view thereof, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below dated 30.3.2019, 21.10.2019, 3.10.2019, 10.10.2019, 8.11.2019, 25.4.2019 and

8.4.2019 in each of the case shall stand set aside and this Court directs as under:

a) The concerned Police Station shall release the tractor and trolley to the person, who is the registered owner of the vehicle alone.

b) The release of the tractor and trolley shall be subject to the condition that the concerned owner shall get both the tractor and the trolley registered

with the transport authorities and also obtain due permit within a period of one month from the date of release and deposit the copy with the concerned

Police Station.

c) A personal security of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Court to which the concerned Police Station is attached, shall

be submitted for the purpose of release of the vehicle.

d) The petitioners shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification. The petitioners shall produce the vehicle as and when

trial Court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.

e) The petitioners shall furnish the photographs of the vehicle showing its number and colour etc.

f). At the time of release, the petitioners shall also give an undertaking to the effect that vehicle shall not be used for any illegal purpose and if so

found, the concerned owner shall be personally liable.

In view of the above and taking into consideration the vehicle involved, this petition is allowed and the order passed by the Court below is quashed and

set aside, with the following directions:

a) The concerned Police Station shall release the Pick- up to the person(s), who is the registered owner of the vehicle alone.

b) The release of the Pick-up having registration No.RJ- 32-GA-8180 and shall be subject to the condition that the concerned owner shall get Pick-up

registered with the Transport Authorities and also obtain due permit within a period of one month from the date of release and deposit the copy with

the concerned Police Station.

c) A personal security of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Court to which the concerned Police Station is attached, shall

be submitted for the purpose of release of the vehicle.

d) The petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when

trial Court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.

e) The petitioner shall furnish the photographs of the vehicle showing its number and colour etc.

f). At the time of release, the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the effect that vehicle shall not be used for any illegal purpose and if so found,

the concerned owner shall be personally liable.

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.