Allowed

Raju Lal v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2019CRLMP/1261/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in special criminal proceeding quashed order refusing release of seized tractor and trolley. Court directed release on bond with conditions prohibiting mining use and ensuring vehicle integrity for trial.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle released on undertaking to maintain identification, produce for proceedings, execute indemnity bond with two sureties, and not use for mining purposes.

Raju Lal Vs State and Anr. — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1261/2018

¶3

Raju Lal S/o Kanhaiya Lal, By Caste Garg R/o Indora, P.s. Gangrar, District Chittorgarh. Registered Owner Of Tractor And Trolley Bearing No. RJ-09-RC-1270.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan

¶7

Mining Department, Chittorgarh.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Charan. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP for the State.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order

¶11

03/07/2019

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasmi District Chittorgarh in Criminal case No.59/2018 (Original case No.34/2018) arising out of F.I.R. No.177/2017, Police StationRasmi, District Chittorgarh whereby learned trial court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under section 451 & 457 Cr.PC. For releasing the vehicle Tractor & Trolley bearing No.RJ-09-RC-1270 on Supardginama.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the vehicle involved in the present case is tractor and Trolley which is not enlisted as vehicle in MMDR Act, 1957, therefore, the petitioner undertakes that subject vehicle will not be used for mining purposes in future. The counsel has further submitted that

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMP-1261/2018]

¶16

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 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.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that Division Bench has held as under:-

¶18

“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.”

¶19

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.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle Tractor and trolley and the same is case property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 , to contend that the

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CRLMP-1261/2018]

¶23

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.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to refute the above position.

¶25

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 vehicle Tractor & Trolley bearing No.RJ-09-RC-1270 seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-

¶26

a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(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.

¶30

(e) The petitioner shall not use the vehicle for mining purposes in future.

¶31

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

¶32

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶33

55-Anil Singh/-

Raju Lal v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Lal v. State and Anr.

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

Fateh Mohammed Vs State of Rajasthan

Tara Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar @ Ramesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Manisha Prajapata Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhom Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Hastimal Vs State