Allowed

Babulal S/O Balchand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Nov 2020CRLMP/2327/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking release of tractors and trolleys illegally seized for carrying 'bazri' or illegal mining. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that Magistrates possess the power to release seized vehicles under Cr.P.C. Sec. 451/457 if confiscation proceedings have not been initiated, subject to conditions including a personal security

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of Magistrates quashed and set aside; seized tractors and trolleys released to registered owners subject to obtaining transport permits and depositing a security bond of Rs. 1,00,000.

Babulal S/O Balchand Vs State of Rajasthan — Mining and Natural Resources | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

(1 of 16)

¶2

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶4

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶5

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2327/2020

¶6

Babulal S/o Balchand, R/o Saleda Kalan, Ps Chechet, Teh. Ramganmandi, Dist. Kota.

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

AND

¶12

Other similar matters as per Schedule-A appended to this order

¶13

This Order shall govern all the cases the particulars of which have been given in Schedule-A appended to this order.

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Amit Jindal, Mr. Manish Gupta,
	Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Mr. Aditya
	Mishra, Mr. Arvind Sharma, Mr.
	Avadesh Kumar Purohit, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶16

Order

¶17

12/11/2020

¶18

All these petitions relate to the prayer for release of tractors and trolleys, which have been seized by the Police Authorities/Mining Authorities/Forest Officials for various reasons including carrying “ bazri” , by way of illegal mining in Rajasthan and selling out the same etc.

¶19

All these petitions have been filed against the order passed by the concerned Magistrate whereby application under Section 451 & 457 Cr.P.C for releasing of tractor and

¶20

(2 of 16)

¶21

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶22

trolley was rejected and therefore, the same are being heard together.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed by this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2723/2019 ( Asharam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & connected misc. petitions) decided by common order dated 3.2.2020.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the order passed subsequently by this court in S. B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) NO.2687/2020 (Nandlal Vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 1.10.2020 to submit that vehicle should be released.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners also rely upon the judgment passed in the case of Nathulal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2755/2020) decided on 1.10.2020, which also took into consideration the interim order passed in PIL “Khem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan”, (D.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.4239/2019) as well as judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat: (2002) 10 SCC 283.

¶26

The Mining Officer of the rank of Mining Engineer (Writ), Jaipur, who is present in court, opposed these petitions and submitted that decision has been taken by Mining Department to challenge the order passed in Asharam (supra) before the Supreme Court by filing of SLP. It is also stated that the Mining Department on the basis of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench in the case of Ganga Ram Vs. State (S.B. Criminal Misc.(Petition) No.1363/2020) at

¶27

(3 of 16)

¶28

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶29

Principal Seat, Jodhpur decided on 2.9.2020 has received opinion from the Additional Government Counsel at Jodhpur to cite the said judgment before the concerned lower Court for denial of release of the vehicle.

¶30

I have considered the submissions and have gone through the judgments which have been cited at bar. 8. At the outset, this court finds that in Ganga Ram Vs. State ( S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1363/2020 ), decided by Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur on 2.9.2020, the judgment of Asharam (supra) was not cited and was not considered. The judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. (supra) was also not considered and the judgments passed in Harun Versus State of Rajasthan ( D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.76/2014) , decided on 23^rd July, 2015 and Laxman Versus State of Rajasthan ( D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.60/2018) were also not brought to the notice of the Court.

¶31

This court further finds that the interim order passed in the case of Khem Singh (supra) and the order passed by NGT have been considered in Gangaram (supra) and directions have been issued that the petitioners therein would be required to deposit the amount determined by Mining Engineer and after the said amount being determined, the vehicle has been directed to be released.

¶32

In Asharam’s case judgment (authored by me), I had an occasion to examine the dispute and consider the law laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to release of vehicle under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. The provisions of Motor

¶33

(4 of 16)

¶34

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶35

Vehicle Act with regard to permits as well as the conditions for carriage permit were also examined.

¶36

This court also examined the power of suspension of permits. That apart, the judgment passed in Harun (supra) was considered by this court which took into consideration the offence committed by the vehicle relating to the Rajasthan Forest Act. In another case of Laxman (supra), the Division Bench considered the aspect regarding confiscation by the Mining Department where the reference was made to the Division Bench as to in what circumstances the vehicle should not be released and it was held that where the confiscation proceedings have already been conducted, the power would not lie with the Magistrate to release the vehicle. The court thereafter passed direction for releasing of the tractor with trolley laying down certain conditions.

¶37

The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 laid down the provisions relating to offenses, penalties and prosecution under Chapter 10. Rule 54(5) & (6) of the Rules, deserve to be quoted, which read as under:

¶38

“54. Illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals :-

(1) …. (2) ….

(3) ……

(4) …..

(5) Whenever any person, without a lawful authority, raises any mineral from any land other than under any mineral concession or any other permission and for that purpose bring on the land any tool, equipment, vehicle or other thing, such tool, equipment, vehicle etc. mineral, if any, may be seized by the authorities mentioned in sub-rule (4)

¶43

(5 of 16)

¶44

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶45

who shall give a receipt to the person from whose possession the property or mineral is seized:

¶46

Provided that every officer seizing any property or mineral under this rule may handover the property or mineral so seized to the nearest police station or police chauki.

¶47

Provided further that the seized vehicle, equipment or mineral may be released after deposition of cost of mineral along with the compound fees as specified in sub-rule (3). Provided also that where mineral so raised has already been dispatched or consumed, the authorities mentioned in subrule (3) shall recover cost of mineral along with the compound fees as specified in sub-rule (3).

¶48

Provided also that where vehicle, equipment or mineral so seized is not released, the officer seizing the property or mineral shall make a report of such seizure within seventy two hours to his superior officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶49

(6) All property seized under this rule shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of Magistrate if the amount equal to ten times of royalty in lieu of cost of mineral, rent, royalty, compensation for environmental degradation and tax chargeable on the land occupied without lawful authority, etc. is not paid by the trespasser within a period of three months from the date of commission of such offence or when the recoveries are not affected by that time:

¶50

Provided that on payment of these dues within the said period of three months, all properties seized shall be ordered to be released and shall be handed over to the trespasser or the owner of the property.”

¶51

On the basis of aforesaid provisions, the Officer i.e. the Mining Engineer (Writ) submits that the power lies with the Mining Engineer to seize the vehicle.

¶52

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has specifically submitted that in none of the case, the Mining Department has passed order either under Rule 54(5) or under Rule 54(6) of the Rules, 2017 that is to say that neither any penalty has been imposed nor the confiscation proceedings have been undertaken.

¶53

(6 of 16)

¶54

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶55

The Mining Engineer (Writ), who is present in person in court, does not dispute with regard to the said fact of the vehicle having not been confiscation as yet.

¶56

In the case of Nathulal (supra), this court had occasion to again examine this aspect and in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. (supra), this court while relying upon the judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. (supra) directed for release of the vehicle.

¶57

This court also notices that different view had been taken by the Coordinate Bench in Naval Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2670/2020), decided on 3.9.2020, which did not notice the law laid down by this court in Asharam (supra) as well as by the Supreme Court supra and therefore, judgment in Naval Singh (supra) was treated as per-incuriam in

¶58

Nathulal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) .

¶59

This court finds that the observations made in Khem Singh (supra) were of interregnum in nature and the law laid down by Supreme Court earlier was not brought to its notice. The provisions for compounding is also after confiscation. In none of the cases herein, the provisions under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 have been pressed by the Mining Department. Till date, neither penalty has been imposed nor confiscation has been done.

¶60

The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. (supra) has examined the law laid down and the

¶61

(7 of 16)

¶62

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶63

conditions with regard to release of different goods/vehicle in different circumstances as under:-

¶64

“8. The question of proper custody of the seized article is raised in number of matters. In Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore: (1977) 4 SCC 358 this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court observed as under:-

¶65

"4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain its ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquire or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance."

¶66

(8 of 16)

¶67

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶68

9. The Court further observed that where the property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie defence made out that the State or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, the Magistrate may, in an appropriate case, where the ends of justice so require, order payment of the value of the property.

¶69

10. To avoid a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest.

¶70

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

¶71

21. However, these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.

¶72

In Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd.:

¶73

(2001) 6 SCC 356 , the Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶74

“19. In Mamleshwar Prasad and Another vs. Kanhaiya Lal reflecting on the principle of judgment per incuriam, in paras 7 & 8, this Court had stated thus:-

¶75

"7. Certainty of the law, consistency of rulings and comity of courts - all flowering from the same principle - converge to the conclusion that a decision once rendered must later bind like cases. We do not intend to detract from the rule that, in exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory

¶76

(9 of 16)

¶77

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶78

provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, it may not have the sway of binding precedents. It should be a glaring case, an obtrusive omission. No such situation presents itself here and we do not embark on the principle of judgment per incuriam. 8. Finally it remains to be noticed that a prior decision of this Court on identical facts and law binds the Court on the same points in a later case. Here we have a decision admittedly rendered on facts and law, indistinguishably identical, and that ruling must bind.

¶79

20.This Court in A.R.Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak & Another (1998 (2) SCC 602), in para 42 has quoted the observations of Lord Goddard in Moore vs. Hewwit (1947) 2 All.ER 270 and Penny vs. Nicholas (1950) 2 All.ER 89 to the following effect:-

¶80

"Per incuriam are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned, so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong..."

¶81

21.This Court in State of U.P. & Another vs. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. & Another MANU/SC/0616/1991:1993(41)ECC326 : 1993 (41) ECC3 26 in para 40 has observed thus :-

¶82

"40. 'Incuria' literally means 'carelessness'. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The 'quotable in law' is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, 'in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority'. (Young v. Bristol aeroplane co. Ltd)..."

¶83

22. The two judgments (1) Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh vs. President Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Others MANU/SC/0479/1990 : (1990)IILLJ70SC : (1990)IILLJ70SC and (2) State of U.P. and Another vs. Synthetics and chemicals Ltd. and Another MANU/SC/0616/1991 : 1993(41)ECC326 : 1993(41)ECC326 were cited in

¶84

(10 of 16)

¶85

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶86

support of the argument. Attention was drawn to paras 40, 41 and 43 in the first judgment and paras 39 and 40 in the second judgment. In these two judgments no view contrary to the views expressed in the aforesaid judgments touching the principle of judgment per incuriam is taken.

¶87

23. A prior decision of this court on identical facts and law binds the Court on the same points of law in a latter case. This is not an exceptional case by inadvertence or oversight of any judgment or statutory provisions running counter to the reason and result reached. Unless it is a glaring case of obtrusive omission, it is not desirable to depend on the principle of judgment 'per incuriam'. It is also not shown that some part of the decision based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, hence the principle of per incuriam cannot be applied.”

¶88

In Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi:

¶89

(2010) 9 SCC 385, the Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶90

“37. It must be remembered that in these proceedings, the pleas raised by the DTC and MCD before the ARC as well as the ARCT were identical. The order passed by the ARCT has been upheld by a coordinate bench of the High Court. The RCSA No: 17/2001 filed by MCD on identical grounds was thus dismissed by a subsequent coordinate bench. That was indeed in conformity with the high traditions, procedures and practices established by the courts to maintain judicial discipline and decorum. The underlying principle being, to avoid conflicting views taken by coordinate benches of the same court. Except in compelling circumstances, such as where the order of the earlier bench can be said to be per incuriam , in that it is passed in ignorance of an earlier binding precedent/statutory or constitutional provision, the subsequent bench would follow the earlier coordinate bench.”

¶91

According to Blacks’ Law Dictionary (Edition) per-incuriam means through inadvertence. The doctrine of per-incuriam is that a decision is to be treated as given per-incuriam when it is given in ignorance of the terms of statute or of a rule having statutory force or a binding precedent.

¶92

(11 of 16)

¶93

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶94

Lord Goddard, in Huddersfield Police Authority Vs. Watson: 27 (1947) 2 All ER 193 observed “where a case or statute has not been brought to the Court’s attention and the Court gave the decision in ignorance or forgetfulness of the existence of the case or statute, it would be a decision rendered in per-incuriam”.

¶95

In the opinion of this court, the view taken by the Supreme Court requires to be considered and followed and any judgment, which did not notice the law laid down by the Supreme Court or the provisions of law, has to be treated as per-incuriam . The provision of Section 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. are unambiguous and clear and it would be useful to quote them as under:-

¶96

451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.

¶97

When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," property" includes-

¶98

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody,

¶99

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

¶100

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.

¶101

(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if

¶102

(12 of 16)

¶103

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶104

such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

¶105

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.

¶106

Unless the respondents namely; Mining Authorities or the State have confiscated the goods/vehicle etc. till that stage, the vehicle can be released by the concerned Magistrate laying down the conditions under Sections 457 Cr.P.C. The prime reason is that goods or vehicle, which have been seized should not go waste or rusted. Of course, the condition of bond can always be imposed as one of the conditions as directed by this court in the case of Asharam (supra) for the purpose.

¶107

Keeping in view the law as noticed above and in view of the fact that there is no confiscation having done for illegal mining as on the date and the imposition of fine or penalty would be on the person (owner) and not on the vehicle, this court is inclined to follow its earlier view taken in Asharam’s case, which reads as under:-

¶108

"11. In the aforesaid background, this Court finds that while it is true that a vehicle should not be allowed to get rusted in Police Station and the same ought to be released for its better maintenance and proper use. Several suggestions were given out by the Officers of the Transport Department as well as by the Mining Department for laying down the conditions before release of the seized tractors, trolleys and vehicles being used for illegal mining activities.

¶109

(13 of 16)

¶110

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶111

12. In Harun Versus State of Rajasthan: D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.76/2014 decided on 23.7.2015 along with connected matters by the Division Bench of this Court wherein it has been held that if a vehicle is found to be involved in committing violation of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and carrying forest produce, the same cannot be released during the pendency of trial on supurdgi to the registered owner of the vehicle, if proceedings of confiscation have already been initiated. Relying upon the law laid down in Harun (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shoukat Khan Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.6307/2016, decided on 22.2.2017 has held that supurdginama can be given, if proceedings for confiscation have been initiated. In Laxman Versus State of Rajasthan: D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.60/2018 decided on 6.4.2018 along with connected matters by the Division Bench where a reference was made to the Division Bench on account of different opinion relating to the power of release of vehicles wherein the Division Bench has held as under:

¶112

“Most of the judgments cited by learned counsel appearing from the side of the petitioners have ruled in favour of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to release the vehicles under the provisions of Section 451 and/or 457 of the Cr.P.C. A discordant note has however been sounded by Single Bench judgment in Ramswaroop’s case, which was later followed in Mala Ram’s, supra. These judgments, in view of the analysis of law which we have made herein-above, do not lay down correct law. In fact, the same Single Judge, who delivered the judgment in Ramswaroop’s case on 28.08.2015, in his earlier judgment dated 26.10.2012 in Muknaram Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3285/2012, had held that in a case in which offence has already been compounded by the competent authority and an amount has been imposed as compounding fees and the same has not been paid or deposited by the person concerned, for the purpose of recovery or realization of the same, a condition can be imposed by the Court while ordering release of the vehicle to pay or deposit the same and the Court can refuse to release the seized vehicle even temporarily under Section 457 Cr.P.C., if such deposit is not made. In view of the above discussion, the referred questions

¶113

(14 of 16)

¶114

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶115

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.”

¶116

In view thereof, the power is vested with the concerned Magistrate for release of seized vehicle.

¶117

13. Keeping in view the above, as this Court notices that in none of the cases, the Mining Department has not initiated the confiscation proceedings, it was submitted that compounding fee must be charged from the petitioners before release of the vehicle. However, this Court is of the view that the compounding fee can only be charged, if it is adjudicated that the concerned vehicle was involved in the illegal activities, which can only be when trial is completed. A presumption in this regard cannot be taken at the present stage.

¶118

14. In view thereof, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below dated 30.3.2019, 21.10.2019, 3.10.2019, 10.10.2019, 8.11.2019, 25.4.2019 and 8.4.2019 in each of the case shall stand set aside and this Court directs as under:

¶119

a) The concerned Police Station shall release the tractor and trolley to the person, who is the registered owner of the vehicle alone.

¶120

b) The release of the tractor and trolley shall be subject to the condition that the concerned owner shall get both the tractor and the trolley registered with the transport authorities and also obtain due permit within a period of one month from the date of release and deposit the copy with the concerned Police Station.

¶121

c) A personal security of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court to which the concerned Police Station is attached, shall be submitted for the purpose of release of the vehicle.

¶122

d) The petitioners shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification. The

¶123

(15 of 16)

¶124

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

¶125

petitioners shall produce the vehicle as and when trial Court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.

¶126

e) The petitioners shall furnish the photographs of the vehicle showing its number and colour etc.

¶127

f). At the time of release, the petitioners shall also give an undertaking to the effect that vehicle shall not be used for any illegal purpose and if so found, the concerned owner shall be personally liable."

¶128

It is noticed that the on coming “Rabi” crop season is approaching and the farmers would require their tractors and trolleys for the said purpose, therefore taking into consideration the above, keeping the vehicles at Police Station would render them go waste.

¶129

Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the Court below are quashed and set aside. The tractor and trolley as mentioned in these petitions as per Schedule-A annexed to this order shall be released as per aforesaid conditions laid down herein-above in Para 14(a) to (f) of Asharam’s case (supra).

¶130

However, it is made clear that if vehicle(s) has been confiscated under the relevant provisions of the Act, then said vehicle(s) shall not be released by the concerned Magistrate. Keeping in view of law laid down in the case of Laxman Versus State of Rajasthan : DB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 60/2018 decided on 6.4.2018.

¶131

All pending applications also stand disposed off.

¶132

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

NITIN /

(16 of 16)

[CRLMP-2327/2020]

SCHEDULE – “A”

Sr. No.	Item No. in cause list dt.12.11.2020	Case type	Case number	Vehicle Type	Vehicle Registration Number
1	46	CRLMP	4270/2020	Tractor with trolley	RJ-29-RA-8700 Engine
2	65	CRLMP	4593/2020	Tractor with trolley	No.3105ELU93K889724 F20
3	69	CRLMP	4610/2020	Tractor with trolley	RJ-33-RA-4297
4	68	CRLMP	4607/2020	Tractor with trolley	RJ-33-RA-2817
5	178	CRLMP	5430/2020	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RD-5573
6	179	CRLMP	5432/2020	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-8873
7	189	CRLMP	5509/2020	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-5722
8	187	CRLMP	5505/2020	Tractor with trolley	RJ-34-RB-3096
9	188	CRLMP	5507/2020	Tractor with trolley	RJ-34-RB-0793
10	184	CRLMP	5465/2020	Tractor with trolley	RJ-34-RB-3700
11	185	CRLMP	5471/2020	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-7662
12	260	CRLMP	5512/2020	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RD-3942
13	261	CRLMP	5640/2020	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-7829 RJ-25-EV-0389

Babulal S/O Balchand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babulal S/O Balchand 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

Bhagwan Singh S/O Shri Sardar Singh B/C Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Kumar Meena S/O Shri Rameshwar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Swaroop Mathur S/O Late Ram Richpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Amisha Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Sumitra Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sohan Singh Shekhawat Vs President Shekhawati Gramin Ba