Prem Singh @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4926/2018:

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hindaun City, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release vehicle Tractor No.RJ34-RA-8165 alongwith Trolley, to the

petitioner.

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.

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.â€​

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not willing to compound the offence, as he has decided to contest the case.

The order passed by the court below whereby release of the vehicle on Supurdagi was refused has been assailed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicles and the same are case property

of case FIR No.487/2018, registered at Police Station Hindan City, District Karauli, for offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 4, 21 of MMDR

Act.

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 vehicles should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain

useful.

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 vehicles seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-

(a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicles so released intactand shall not change their identification.

(b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicles as and when trialcourt requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.

(c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/indemnitybond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other conditions in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety bonds to be furnished by the

petitioner and sureties, which it may deem fit.

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

S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.484/2018:

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.484/2018 is allowed.

Registry is directed to carry correction in the order dated 10.08.2018 and wherever words “Trolley No.RJ-34-EB-0112†occur, same be

corrected as “Trolley No.RJ-34-EV-0112â€​.

Necessary corrigendum, if required, be issued in this regard.

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4927/2018:

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused-petitioners praying that direction be issued to the respondent to conduct

fair, proper, impartial and expeditious investigation in case arising out of FIR No.487/2018, registered at P.S. Hindaun City, District Karauli for

offences under Section 379 IPC and Section 4, 21 of MMDR Act.

Shri M.I. Khan appearing for Shri B.M. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, has stated at bar that till today investigation is pending and no

report of investigation has been submitted.

Shri Prakash Thakuriya, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, to allay the apprehension of the petitioners, at the outset, has submitted that in case

petitioners appear before the Investigating Officer and project their version and produce documents in their favour, the Investigating Officer shall not

only consider the same, but shall conduct the investigation fairly and impartially.

 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the present petition be disposed of in terms of the statement made by the learned

Public Prosecutor for the State.

Ordered accordingly.

A copy of this order under the seal and signature of the Court Master be handed over to the learned Public Prosecutor for onward transmission and

necessary compliance.