Allowed

Hansraj Meena v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC26 Apr 2018CRLMP/840/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought setting aside lower court orders refusing release of a seized tractor and trolley. The High Court relied on MMDR Act interpretation and Supreme Court precedent, allowing the petition to permit release upon executing a supurdaginama and furnishing bonds.

What did the court decide?

Release of tractor and trolley subject to conditions including supurdaginama, indemnity bond, and bonds by two sureties.

Hansraj Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 840/2018

¶3

Hansraj Meena S/o Shri Ramjilal Meena, B/c Meena, R/o Gajjupura, Police Station, Sapotra, District Karauli (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadaun For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aladeen Khan, P.P.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

/ Order

¶11

26/04/2018

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 16.12.2017 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, be set aside, whereby the said Court refused to release Mahindra Tractor 275 D.I. bearing Engine No. RHH2EBN5332 and Chasis No. MBNAAAEAALHJAH01170 along with trolley to the petitioner. It is further prayed that the order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the revisional Court below be also set aside.

¶13

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

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMP-840/2018]

¶16

to report the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

¶18

Division Bench has held as under:-

¶19

“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.”

¶20

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.

¶21

The orders passed by the two Courts below whereby release of the tractor and trolley on Supurdagi was refused have been assailed.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending, qua the tractor and trolley and the same are case property of case FIR No.134/2017, registered at Police Station Kaila Devi District Karauli for offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. and under Section 4/21 of MMDR Act.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

¶24

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC

¶25

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.

¶26

Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) , present petition is

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CRLMP-840/2018]

¶29

allowed and the trial court is directed to release the tractor and trolley seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-

¶30

“a) That the petitioner shall keep the tractor and trolley so released intact and shall not change their identification.

¶31

b) That the petitioner shall produce the tractor and trolley as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.

¶32

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

¶33

(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.”

¶34

Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the

¶35

petitioner is a registered owner of the tractor and trolley.

¶36

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶37

ashok

Hansraj Meena v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hansraj Meena 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamod Vs Assistant Engineer PWD

Rameshwar Vs Assistant Engineer PWD

Ramesh Chand Solanki Vs Smt Veenu Gupta and Ors.

Ravi Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs Gram Panchayat

Hori Lal Vs State of Raj and Ors.