Mithu Lal vs State Of Rajasthan

The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Tractor with trolley to the petitioner. It is further prayed that the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bhilwara, Camp at Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara in Criminal Revision No.66/2018 be also set aside. The tractor with trolley was seized in connection with F.I.R. No.210/2018 registered at P.S. Bigod, District Bhilwara for the offence under Section 379 IPC and Section 4/21 of the MMDR Act.

2.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in bunch of petitions, lead case being D.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 60/2018, titled as Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, a Division Bench of this Court on 6.4.2018, has held that if a vehicle has been seized under the Provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR Act'), for 72 hours competent Officer can retain the vehicle and thereafter, he is mandatorily required to report the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

2.2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Division Bench has held as under:-

"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."

2.3 The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the tractor with trolley and the same is case property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit the compounding fee of Rs.25,000/-.

Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to refute the above position.

Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the Tractor with trolley seized on supardaginama in favour of the petitioner on usual conditions, which the trial court deems fit and subject to the petitioner depositing the compounding fee of Rs.25,000/-.

Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle.