Allowed

Nafees S/O Latif B/C Gaddi Muslman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2020CRLMP/365/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan directed the release of seized dumpers, trucks, and trailers to their registered owners. It held that once seized vehicles are reported to the Magistrate, only the Magistrate has power to release them. While release was granted subject to conditions, including registration and a personal security of Rs. 5 lakh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders below were set aside. Vehicles are to be released to registered owners subject to payment of personal security of Rs. 5,00,000, registration, and an undertaking against illegal use

Nafees S/O Latif B/C Gaddi Muslman Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

(1 of 7)

¶2

[CRLR-911/2020]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶4

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶5

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 911/2020

¶6

Vinod Kumar S/o Devi Sahai, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Bhojwada Tehsil Baswa Distt. Dausa Raj. (Owner Of Trailer No. Rj-29-Ga-7641)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶10

Asst. Engineer (Mining Engineer), Mining Department Sawai Madhopur Raj.

¶11

Station House Officer (Sho), Malarna Doongar, Distt. Distt. Sawai Madhopur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. D.D.Khandelwal, Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Mr. Rajpal Yogi, Mr. Arpit Srivastava, Mr. Rahul Agrawal, Mr. Sanjay Gangwar, Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh
	Chouhan, Mr. Moti Lal Sharma, Mr. N.S.Dhakad, Mr. Amit Dadhich, Mr. Tarun Jain, Mr. Sanjay Khan, Ms. Priya Pareek, Mr. Avadesh Kumar Purohit, Mr. Krishan Kant Sharma, Mr. D S Dhariwal, Mr. S.Gharana
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. F.R.Meena, PP

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

06/11/2020

(2 of 7)

[CRLR-911/2020]

All these petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying for release of Dumper/Truck/Trailer, which were seized, while doing illegal mining. The details of the concerned vehicle are being shown in the annexed Schedule-”A” to this order as per their respective petitions.

¶23

The release of vehicle has been examined at length by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Versus State of Gujarat : (2002) 10 SCC 283 , which has been followed by this Court in Asharam Versus State of Rajasthan : S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2723/2019 along with connected cases decided on 3.2.2020 and Nathulal Versus State of Rajasthan : S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2755/2020 decided on 01.10.2020. In the case of Asharam (supra), the Court has held as under:

¶24

“ 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.

¶25

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

¶26

(3 of 7)

¶27

[CRLR-911/2020]

¶28

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:

¶29

“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

¶30

(4 of 7)

¶31

[CRLR-911/2020]

¶32

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.”

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

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:

¶36

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

¶37

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.

¶38

(5 of 7)

¶39

[CRLR-911/2020]

¶40

c) A personal security of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/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. d) The petitioners shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification. The petitioners shall produce the vehicle as and when trial Court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.

¶41

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

¶42

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."

¶43

In view of the above, all these petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the Court below are quashed and set aside, however, taking into consideration that the vehicle is a dumper/truck/trailer and not tractor as in Asharam (supra), the security amount is liable to be enhanced and following directions are passed:

¶44

a) The concerned Police Station shall release the Dumper/Truck/Trailer to the person(s), who is the registered owner of the vehicle alone.

¶45

b) The release of the Dumper/Truck/Trailer shall be subject to the condition that the concerned owner shall get Dumper/Truck/Trailer 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.

¶46

c) A personal security of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- 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.

¶47

(6 of 7)

¶48

[CRLR-911/2020]

¶49

d) The petitioners shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification. The petitioners shall produce the vehicle as and when trial Court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

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.

¶53

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶54

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

NITIN /

(7 of 7)

[CRLR-911/2020]

SCHEDULE – “A”

Sr. No.	Item No. in cause list dt.6.11.2020	Case type	Case number Vehicle Type Vehicle Registration Number
1	51	CRLR	911/2020 Trailer RJ 29 GA 7641
2	52	CRLR	1022/2020 Truck RJ 11 GA 0227
3	63	CRLMP	5149/2020 Truck RJ 02 RD 4090
4	93	CRLMP	5233/2020 Truck RJ 11 GB 2367
6	100	CRLMP	5252/2020 Dumper RJ 14 GF 8174
7	132	CRLMP	6075/2017 Truck PB 13 AB 9075
8	137	CRLMP	365/2020 Truck RJ 26 GA 3431
9	154	CRLMP	4447/2020 Truck RJ 08 GA 1581
10	156	CRLMP	5140/2020 Trailer RJ 27 GB 8123
11	157	CRLMP	5159/2020 Truck RJ 05 GB 1690
12	163	CRLMP	5271/2020 Truck RJ 34 GA 1347
13	166	CRLMP	5315/2020 Truck RJ 17 RB 3309
14	168	CRLMP	5363/2020 Dumper RJ 25 GA 8055
15	170	CRLMP	5374/2020 Dumper RJ 40 GA 1747
16	174	CRLMP	5387/2020 Trailer RJ 09 GC 4465
17	175	CRLMP	5390/2020 Dumper RJ 37 GA 8400
18	176	CRLMP	5393/2020 Dumper RJ 47 GA 3221
19	183	CRLMP	5403/2020 Dumper RJ 37 GA 7983
20	186	CRLMP	5418/2020 Truck RJ 52 GA 7147
21	188	CRLMP	5428/2020 Truck RJ 14 GF 9624
22	C-1	CRLMP	5425/2020 Trailer RJ 28 GA 3915

Nafees S/O Latif B/C Gaddi Muslman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nafees S/O Latif B/C Gaddi Muslman 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

X a Victim Vs State of Rajasthan

Gandharv Singh S/O Shri Ramchitra B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Natwar Lal S/O Madan Mohan B/C Bairagi Vs State of Rajasthan

Girdhari Son of Shri Hari Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinita W/O Late Fateh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Prajapat S/O Shri Mangi Lal Prajapat B/C Prajapat Vs State of Rajasthan