Rajveer @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate,

Sapotra District Karauli, be set aside, whereby the said Court refused to release tractor bearing registration No.RJ-25-RB3710 to the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in bunch of petitions, lead case being D.B. Cri Miscellaneous Petition No.60/2018, titled as

Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, a Division Bench of this Court on 06.04.2018, 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 tractor 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 tractor and the same is case property of

case FIR No.33/2018, registered at Police Station Sapotra District Karauli for commission of offences punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. and under

Section 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 vehicle 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  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 seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-

“(a) That the petitioner shall keep the tractor, so released intact and shall not change its identification.

(b) That the petitioner shall produce the tractor as and whentrial court 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.â€​

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