Dismissed

Bijender v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2013CRLMP/3769/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the refusal to release a truck seized during an illegal mining operation. The court held that under the Mines and Minerals Act and local rules, such vehicles are liable to confiscation and cannot be released during trial pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Status quo of seized truck maintained; revision orders of lower courts upheld.

Bijender Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp. — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3769 of 2012.

¶4

Bijender son of Shri Raghuvir Singh

¶5

VERSUS The State of Rajasthan

¶6

Date Of Order ::: 04.03.2013

¶7

Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Chauhan

¶8

Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for the State

¶9

***

¶10

Per Court :

¶11

The petitioner, Bijender, is aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Kaman, District Bharatpur, whereby the learned Magistrate had dismissed the petitioner's application for ' supardgi ' of the Highway Truck, bearing registration No.HR-46/C-4139. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2012 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.1, Deeg, District Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, and has upheld the order dated 04.06.2012.

¶12

Brief facts of the case are that on 22.03.2012, one Tejpal Gupta, Assistant Mining Engineer, Bharatpur, lodged F.I.R., wherein he claimed that a raid was carried out jointly by a team comprising of Cobra, S.O.G., and the Police, under directions of the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, in Village Nangal, Tehsil Pahadi, District Bharatpur, on the land bearing Khasra No.162. It was discovered that there is an illegal mining of Cheja stone in khasra No.162. During the course of investigation, the petitioner's vehicle was seized by the Police.

¶13

¶14

Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for release of the said vehicle. However, by order dated 04.06.2012, the learned Magistrate declined to do so. Since, the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2012, he filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. However, by order dated 27.06.2012, the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition, and upheld the order dated 04.06.2012, as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court.

¶15

Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that on two earlier occasions, the learned Magistrate had released a dumper, bearing registration No.HR-74-8448, and a tractor, bearing registration No.HR-28-B8510. However, when the case came up for releasing the vehicle of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate declined to do so. Therefore, the act of the learned Magistrate is absolutely arbitrary. Even when this fact had been pointed out to the learned Judge, the learned Judge has still upheld the order of the learned Magistrate. Hence, both the orders need to be interfered with.

¶16

Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals [Development and Regulation] Act, 1957, prescribes the penalties for contravene the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-A) of Section 4 of the Act. Section 21 (4) of the Act prescribes that whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, and, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, such mineral tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority

¶17

¶18

specially empowered in this behalf. Moreover, Section 21 (4-A) of the Act further provides to dispose of the vehicle in accordance with the directions of such Court. Moreover, Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, provides not only the seizure, but also confiscation of the property, which includes a vehicle. Thus, according to the law, any vehicle used for violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 or of the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, is subject to confiscation. Since the vehicle is subject to confiscation, it would not be proper to release the vehicle during the pendency of the trial.

¶19

Merely because the learned Magistrate may have directed the custody of other vehicles to be handed over to their owners, cannot operate as an estopple. For, there is no estopple against the provisions of law. Moreover, even if an order has been passed by the learned Magistrate, it cannot be claimed that the similar order should be passed by the said Magistrate in favour of the petitioner also. For, concept of equality does not exist in a negative sense, but operates only in a positive sense.

¶20

Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders; the petition being devoid of merit is hereby, dismissed.

¶21

Upon dismissal of the main petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive; the same is also dismissed.

¶22

[R.S. Chauhan] J.

¶23

ashok/ Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Ashok Kumar Songara/P.A.cum J.W.

Bijender v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijender v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kartar and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Bahadur Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Udairaj Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Birdhilal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Suraj Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Billu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.