High Court allowed criminal application by truck owner seeking return of seized vehicle. Court held release is entitled as royalty is paid and penalty yet undetermined, directing return on bond.
The seized truck is returned to the applicant on a bond of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
916criappln1910.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
916 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1910 OF 2021
Amol s/o Sanjay Valave, Age; 31 years, Occ; Business, R/o; Valave Vasti Villate; Ganga Padali, Tq. and District Nashik.
...Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Inspector, Upnagar Police Station, Nandurbar, District; Nandurbar. ...Respondent
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.Gadve Patil Kishor M. APP for Respondent-State : Mrs.G.L.Deshpande
CORAM : SURENDRA P.TAVADE , J.
DATE : 07th September, 2021.
ORDER :
2
916criappln1910.21
Nandurbar on 15.07.2021. The truck was carrying sand from Gujarat State to Maharashtra State. The applicant had paid the royalty to the Gujarat State but he did not show payment of 0% royalty to the Maharashtra State. It is contended that 0% royalty was not paid on the day on which the truck was seized by the police. It is contended that subsequently 0% royalty has been paid by the applicant. It is contended that after the truck was parked in the premises of Tahsil office, the driver of the truck, took away the truck without permission of the revenue officer, so an offence under Section 379 of the IPC was lodged against him. Initially offence under Section 379 of the IPC r/w Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was registered against the truck driver. Thereafter without the payment of 0% royalty the driver took away the truck, therefore, another offence under Section 379 of IPC has been registered against him.
3 916criappln1910.21
independent, therefore, there was no bar for the release of seized truck.
4
916criappln1910.21
produced the same. But the driver failed to produce the payment of 0% royalty, therefore, the truck was taken to the police station. On the said night the driver of the truck without permission took away the truck away of premises of Tahsil Office. Hence separate offence under Section 379 of IPC was registered.
5 916criappln1910.21
mentioned here that the applicant had valid permission to transport the sand from the Gujarat State to Maharashtra State. So it is not usual case of extraction of mine minerals without permission. The Revenue Authority has taken action against the applicant but the truck cannot be detained for unlimited period, therefore, I am of the considered view that the applicant is entitled for the release of truck. With this I pass following order :
ORDER
1. Application is allowed.
( SURENDRA P.TAVADE ) JUDGE
mahajansb/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a seized truck should be released to the owner after the royalty has been paid though penalty proceedings are pending.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amol s/o Sanjay Valave
The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Inspector
SURENDRA P.TAVADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
