Allowed

Ganpat Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC30 Jul 2019CRLMP/3712/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous petition allowed. Petitioner seeking release of seized dumper vehicle without depositing compounding fees. Court relied on Supreme Court precedent to direct trial court to release vehicle on bonded basis with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Directed trial court to release seized dumper (RJ-19GB-1565) on supurdaginama, bonds of sureties, and conditions of integrity, availability for identification, and no future mining use.

Ganpat 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. 3712/2019

¶3

Ganpat Ram S/o Shri Luna Ram, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Benan Tehsil Pipar City District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Jai Kishan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶10

Order

¶11

30/07/2019

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Criminal Revision No.25/2019 upholding the order dated 11.06.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City, District Jodhpur in FIR No.137/2019, Police Station Pipar City, District Jodhpur whereby learned trial court directed the petitioner to deposit the compounding fees with the mining department for release of vehicle Dumper bearing registration No. RJ-19GB-1565 on supurdginama.

¶13

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 06.04.2018, has held that if a vehicle has

¶14

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-3712/2019]

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

“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.”

¶18

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 orders passed by two courts below whereby release of the vehicle on Supurdagi was refused have been assailed.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle dumper 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 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.

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CRLMP-3712/2019]

¶22

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

¶23

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 Dumper bearing registration No. RJ-19GB-1565 seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

c) That the petitioner shall execute

¶27

Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶28

(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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶32

200-SunilS/-

Ganpat Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat 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

Rahul Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Periwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagirath Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Pappu Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhanna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganpat Bano Vs State of Rajasthan