Allowed

Rupa Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2019CRLMP/35/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing the lower court's order rejecting a release application. Directing the trial court to release the seized vehicle to the petitioner, subject to ownership verification and deposit of a compounding fee.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order set aside; release of the Tata Dumper bearing No. RJ-07-GB-5589 to the petitioner upon verification of ownership and deposit of Rs. 1,10,500/- compounding fee.

Rupa Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 35/2019

¶3

Rupa Ram S/o Bhanwara Jat, Aged About 40 Years, resident of Chakk 18 Kjd Siyasar Chougan, Teh Khajuwala, Dist Bikaner (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

		----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Vinod Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor Mr. Gurmel Singh, SHO, P.S. Gajner, District Bikaner

¶8

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶9

Order

¶10

10/01/2019

¶11

The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., seeking the following relief :-

¶12

“(i) The impugned order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate at Shri Kolayat, District Bikaner in Case No.322/2018 (Rupa Ram Vs. State) may kindly be set aside and quashed.

¶13

(ii) The respondent may kindly be directed to release the vehicle of petitioner being Tata Dumper bearing No.RJ-07-GB-5589”

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner argued that no case either by police Authority nor by Mining Department has been lodged about the alleged incident of illegal transportation of sand material (Bajri) and even seizure memo has not been prepared by

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMP-35/2019]

¶17

the police, thus, prayed that the vehicle in-question be released and the order impugned rejecting the application under Section 457 Cr. P.C., may kindly be quashed and set aside consequently allowing the application.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 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 6.4.2018, 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.

¶19

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

¶20

“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.”

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the Dumper and the same is case property. The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶22

has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 , to contend that the Supreme

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMP-35/2019]

¶25

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

Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to refute the above position.

¶27

Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release Tata Dumper bearing Regn. No.RJ-07-GB-5589 seized on supardaginama in favour of petitioner on usual conditions, which the trial court deems fit subject to depositing of compounding fee totaling Rs.1,10,500/- before such release by the petitioner.

¶28

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

¶29

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶30

Sanjay

Rupa Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupa Ram v. State of Rajasthan

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

Kamla Paliwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmi Lal Salvi Vs State of Rajasthan

Shiv Mohan Patel Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Kumar Vs State

Netram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Yadav Vs State