Allowed

Kaduram Meena Son of Shri Laxman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Oct 2020CRLMP/5112/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court directed police to release seized tractors and trolleys used in illegal mining. The court held that since the Mining Department had not initiated confiscation proceedings or imposed penalties, the Magistrate's power under Cr.P.C. Sections 451 and 457 allowed release subject to conditions, including a security bond and mandatory vehicle registration.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; seized tractors and trolleys released to registered owners upon depositing Rs. 1,00,000 security, getting vehicles registered/permitting within one month, and undertaking not to use

Kaduram Meena Son of Shri Laxman Vs State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 397/2020

¶3

Julfi Singh S/o Shri Jawahar Singh , Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Tighra, Ps Sadar, District Dholpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

AND

¶9

Other connected cases as per Schedule-A appended to this order

¶10

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

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Mr. Rajesh Gadwal, Mr. Anupam Sharma, Mr. Sanjay Khan, Mr. R.R. Goyal, Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma, Mr. Tapeshwar Pal Singh Parmar, Mr. D.D. Khandelwal, Mr. Arvind Sharma, Mr. Umesh Dixit, Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Mr. Mohar Pal Meena, Mr. Amit Ratnawat, Mr. Bharat Yadav, Mr. Brahm Singh Gurjar, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Bhardwaj, Mr. Ashindra Gautam, Mr. Dushyant Jain, Mr. Sumit Khandelwal, Mr. Nitin Jain, Mr. Sandeep Jain, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa, Ms. Vandana Sharma, Mr. Narayan Singh Chaudhary, Mr. Syed Shahid Hasan, Mr. Shivraj Chauhan, Mr. Atual Kumar Jain, Mr. Mohammed Anees, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Sahu, Mr. Vikash Kumar Jakhar, Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Mr. Abhijeet Panchariya, Mr. Hanish Khan, Mr. M.S. Choudhary, Mr. Poonam Chand Sharma, Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar, Mr. Vijayant Nirwan, Mr. Girish Khandelwal, Mr. D.S. Dhariwal, Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka, Mr. S.S.

¶12

(2 of 36)

¶13

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶14

Solanki, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Mr. Sumit Khandelwal, Mr. Teeka Ram Meena, Mr. Bheem Sain Bairwa, Mr. Raj Kumar Kasana, Mr. Harish Chandra Sharma, Ms. Sarika Choudhary, Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Mr. Girraj Prasad Gadhwal, Mr. Rohit Khandelwal, Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Manu Agarwal, Mr. Mohd. Shakir Khan, Mr. Umesh Vyas, Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Mr. Karanpal Singh, Mr. Avadesh Kumar Purohit, Mr. R.R. Goyal, Mr. Koslesh Kumar Bairwa, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Barala, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Mr. Tarun Jain, Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Mr. Deepak Khandelwal, Mr. Amit Jindal, Mr. Vikas Kabra, Mr. Moti Lal Sharma, Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura, Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Mr. Amit Dadhich, Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Pandey, Mr. Narendra Singh Shekhawat, Mr. Shivraj Chauhan, Mr. Satish Kumar Khandelwal, Mr. M.F. Baig, Mr. Ajit Singh Devanda, Mr. Dharmendra Gurjar, Mr. Devanshu Sharma, Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Palia, Mr. Sandeep jain, Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Arpit Srivastava, Mr. R.D. Meena, Mr. K.A. Khan, Mr. Aditya Mishra, Ms. Sunita Vashistha, Mr. Shri Ram Dhaka Mr. Chaman Singh, Mr. Ashok Yadav, Mr. Vishnu Shankar Badaya, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena, Mr. Sanjay Khedar, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP Mr. Anuj Goyal, Mining Engineer (Writ), Jaipur

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

23/10/2020

REPORTABLE

All these petitions relate to the prayer for release of tractors and trolleys, which have been seized by the Police

¶20

(3 of 36)

¶21

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶22

Authorities/Mining Authorities/Forest Officials for various reasons including carrying “ bazri” , by way of illegal mining in Rajasthan and selling out the same etc.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

(4 of 36)

¶28

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶29

well as judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat: (2002) 10 SCC 283.

¶30

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 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.

¶31

I have considered the submissions and have gone through the judgments which have been cited at bar.

¶32

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.

¶33

(5 of 36) [CRLMP-397/2020]

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(6 of 36)

¶39

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶40

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.

¶41

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:

¶42

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

¶48

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.

¶49

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).

¶50

Provided also that where vehicle, equipment or mineral so seized is not released, the officer seizing the property or

¶51

(7 of 36)

¶52

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶53

mineral shall make a report of such seizure within seventy two hours to his superior officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶54

(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:

¶55

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.”

¶56

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.

¶57

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.

¶58

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.

¶59

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.

¶60

(8 of 36)

¶61

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶62

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

¶63

Nathulal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) .

¶64

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.

¶65

The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. (supra) has examined the law laid down and the conditions with regard to release of different goods/vehicle in different circumstances as under:-

¶66

“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:-

¶67

"4. The object and scheme of the various

¶68

(9 of 36)

¶69

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶70

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."

¶71

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.

¶72

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

¶73

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

¶74

(10 of 36)

¶75

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶76

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.

¶77

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.

¶78

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

¶79

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

¶80

“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:-

¶81

"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 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.

¶82

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.

¶83

(11 of 36)

¶84

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶85

Hewwit (1947) 2 All.ER 270 and Penny vs. Nicholas (1950) 2 All.ER 89 to the following effect:-

¶86

"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..."

¶87

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 :-

¶88

"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)..."

¶89

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 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.

¶90

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

¶91

(12 of 36)

¶92

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶93

reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, hence the principle of per incuriam cannot be applied.”

¶94

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

¶95

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

¶96

“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.”

¶97

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.

¶98

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”.

¶99

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

¶100

(13 of 36)

¶101

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶102

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:-

¶103

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

¶104

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-

¶105

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

¶106

(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.

¶107

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.

¶108

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

¶109

(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.

¶110

(14 of 36)

¶111

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶112

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.

¶113

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:-

¶114

"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.

¶115

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.

¶116

(15 of 36)

¶117

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶118

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:

¶119

“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 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.”

¶120

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

¶121

13. Keeping in view the above, as this Court notices that in none of the cases, the Mining Department has

¶122

(16 of 36)

¶123

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶124

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.

¶125

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:

¶126

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

¶127

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.

¶128

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.

¶129

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.

¶130

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

¶131

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."

¶132

(17 of 36)

¶133

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶134

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.

¶135

Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and 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

¶136

Asharam’s case (supra).

¶137

All pending applications also stand disposed off.

¶138

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

Anu /397

(18 of 36)

[CRLMP-397/2020]

SCHEDULE-A

S.No.	Item No in cause list dt. 23.10.20	Case Number and name of parties.	Vehicle Type	Vehicle Registration No.
1	166	SBCRLMP No.397/20 Julfi Singh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-11-RA-9397
2	169	CRLMP No.1231/20 Bhojraj Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-33-RA-2540
3	170	CRLMP No.2022/20 Babulal Meena Vs. State	Tractor & trolley	RJ-34-RB-2164 RJ-34-EV-0684
4	172	CRLMP No.2059/20 KhemrajVs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-3354 RJ-25-EV-1108
5	173	CRLMP No.2062/20 Om Prakash Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-4289
6	175	CRLMP No.2076/20 Rameshwar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-6333
7	176	CRLMP No.2077/20 Rameshwar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-06-RB-5558
8	177	CRLMP No.2111/20 Sumer Singh Gurjar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-29-RA-2850
9	178	CRLMP No.2112/20 Sardar Singh Gurjar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-29-RA-5116
10	179	CRLMP No.2179/20 Veerbhan Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-2982
11	180	CRLMP No.2186/20 Suneel Kumar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RD-0727
12	181	CRLMP No.2232/20 Rajesh Kumar Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-26-RB-8191
13	182	CRLMP No.2230/20 Sanjay Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-26-RA-9159
14	183	CRLMP No.2231/20 Gorulal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-47-RA-0793
15	184	CRLMP No.2274/20 Premram Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-26-RB-1954
16	186	CRLMP No.2362/20 Meenakshi Kumari Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-34-RB-3108 RJ-34-EV-0360
17	187	CRLMP No.2404/20 Hukam Singh Mali Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-5319
18	188	CRLMP No.2441 Dinesh Kumar Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-8694 RJ-25-EV-2215
19	189	CRLMP No.2452/20 Irshad Ahmed Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-3968 RJ-25-EV-0164

¶144

		(19 of 36)	[C	RLMP-397/2020]
20	190	CRLMP No.2476/20 Parmeshwar Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-26-RA-7708
21	191	CRLMP No.2492/20 Jatan Singh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-34-RB-2676 RJ-34-EV-0678
22	192	CRLMP No.2519/20 Prahalad Meena Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-29-RA-9754 RJ-02-EV-0275
23	193	CRLMP No.2530/20 Tikaram Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-7652
24	194	CRLMP No.2540/20 Ikram Ahamad Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-3720 RJ-25-EV-0724
25	195	CRLMP No.2554/20 Harendra Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	UP-83-AC-3961
26	196	CRLMP No.2562/20 Rajesh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-8861
27	198	CRLMP No.2578/20 Harikesh Meena Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-8924
28	199	CRLMP No.2601/20 Khilari Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-8360
29	200	CRLMP No.2603/20 Arjun Lal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-26-RB-5745 RJ-26-EV-0449
30	202	CRLMP No.2613/20 Onkar Prasad Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-14-RD-6660
31	203	CRLMP No.2621/20 Lokesh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-47-RA-2901
32	205	SBCMP No.2630/20 Banti Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ 26-RB 7374
33	206	SBCMP No.2631/20 Sitaram Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ 26-RB 7087
34	207	SBCMP No.2636/20 Ramswaroop @ Swaroop Vs. State	Tractor with trolley Tractor with trolley	RJ 26-RB-1827 RJ-08-RA-5358
35	208	SBCMP No.2658/20 Rajveer Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ 25-RB-3710 RJ 25-EV-0217
36	209	SBCMP No.2664/20 Jagdeesh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ 14-RC-2888 RJ 14-EV-0227
37	210	SBCMP No.2668/20 Dharmraj Meena Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-29-RB-5293
38	211	SBCMP No.2673/20 Madhu Devi Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-3194
39	214	SBCMP No.2699/20 Dev Lal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-8350
40	215	SBCMP No.2704/20 Sankar Lal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-14-RD-0743 RJ-14-EV-0071
41	216	SBCMP No.2706/20 Bharat Lal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-14-RD-6620 RJ-14-EV-0232
42	217	SBCMP No.2707/20	Tractor	RJ-06-RB-7280

¶145

(20 of 36) [CRLMP-397/2020]

¶146

		Tayyub Vs. State	trolley
43	218	SBCMP No.2722/20 Shaitan Singh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-8286
44	219	SBCMP No.2741/20 Bodulal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-14-RD-3257
45	220	SBCMP No.2754/20 Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-7645 RJ-14-RC-9044
46	221	SBCMP No.2756/20 Sukhpal Vs. State	Tractor	RJ-26-RB-5399
47	223	SBCMP No.2774/20 Shankar Lal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-8985
48	226	SBCMP No.2796/20 GirirajVs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-47-RA-2615
49	227	SBCMP No.2795/20 Ram Prasad Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RD-4775
50	228	SBCMP No.2797/20 Madan Lal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RD-3301
51	229	SBCMP No.2803/20 Hem raj Vs. State	Tractor Tractor Tractor	RJ-26-RB-8475 RJ-26-RB-5786 RJ-26-RB-6337
52	230	CRLMP No.2841/20 Ganesh Narayan Meena Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-6460
53	231	CRLMP No.2857/20 Kamlesh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-26-RB-6344 RJ-25-EV-1503
54	232	CRLMP No.2866/20 AjayKumar Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-8892 RJ-25-EV-0078
55	233	CRLMP No.2882/20 Madan Lal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	ENG- RHH2KF1087 Chachis No.WZTA81419 107145
56	234	CRLMP No.2883/20 Kishan Lal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-5366 RJ-25-EV-0801
57	235	CRLMP No.2898/20 BharatrajVs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-26-RB-8615
58	236	CRLMP No.2899/20 Devhans Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-26-RB-6892
59	237	CRLMP No.2909/20 Kailash Prajapat Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-3409 RJ-25-EV-0271
60	238	CRLMP No.2913/20 Shankar Lal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-20-RA-7225
61	239	CRLMP No.2918/20 Prem Singh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-14-RD-6123
62	241	CRLMP No.2930/20 Kallo Devi Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-7242
63	242	CRLMP No.2931/20	Tractor	RJ-25-RB-0893

¶147

		(21 of 36)	[C	RLMP-397/2020]
		Batti Lal Meena Vs. State	Trolley	RJ-25-EV-0020
64	243	CRLMP No.2932/20 Ram Prasad Meena Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-0637
65	244	CRLMP No.2933/20 Dinesh Kumar Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RA-7922
66	245	CRLMP No.2946/20 Shakti Singh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-6899 RJ-25-EV-0094
67	246	CRLMP No.2951/20 Raghuveer Gurjar Vs. State	Trolley	RJ-25-EV-2150
68	247	CRLMP No.2952/20 Chetan Kumar Vs. State	Tractor	RJ-26-RB-8695
69	248	CRLMP No.2957/20 Suresh Kumar Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-26-RB-0459
70	249	CRLMP No.2962/20 Dinesh Vs. State	Tractor	RJ-26-RB-3899
71	250	CRLMP No.2964/20 Rajendra Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-14-RD-1987
72	251	CRLMP No.2965/20 Suresh Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-14-RC-3682
73	252	CRLMP No.2966/20 Lalaram Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-09-RB-3850
74	253	CRLMP No.2967/20 Mahaveer Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-26-RA-7738
75	254	CRLMP No.2968/20 Prakash Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-14-RC-9205
76	255	CRLMP No.2973/20 ShivrajVs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-26-RB-6990
77	256	CRLMP No.2974/20 Ramhans Kanwar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RD-1844 RJ-02-RB-9489
78	257	CRLMP No.2988/20 Giriraj @ Keltaram Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-26-RB-3616
79	258	CRLMP No.3002/20 Sitabai Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-34-RA-8688
80	259	CRLMP No.3003/20 KuldeepVs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-34-RB-0008
81 82	260 261	CRLMP No.3006/20 Shrawanlal Vs. State CRLMP No.3007/20 Nathulal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley Tractor Trolley	RJ-26-RB-5558 RJ-26-RA-6786
83	262	CRLMP No.3010/20 Panna Lal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	E-NYDH00800 RJ-25-EV-0815
84	263	CRLMP No.3011/20 Harikesh Meena Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-1069

¶148

		(22 of 36)	[C	RLMP-397/2020]
85	264	CRLMP No.3012/20 Jitendra Kumar Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-6520
86	265	CRLMP No.3013/20 Dayaram Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-26-RB-3280
87	266	CRLMP No.3014/20 Kishan Lal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-14-RD-6751
88	267	CRLMP No.3019/20 Amritlal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-6325
89	268	CRLMP No.3021/20 Mukesh Meena Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RA-6142
90	269	CRLMP No.3026/20 DharamrajVs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-23-RB-9593
91	270	CRLMP No.3027/20 Prahlad Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-29-RB-3237
92	271	CRLMP No.3028/20 Rambharos Meena Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-1381
93	272	CRLMP No.3029/20 Govardhan Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-29-RB-4383
94	273	CRLMP No.3030/20 Hanuman Meena Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RA-7133
95	274	CRLMP No.3067/20 Shivjiram Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-7329
96	275	CRLMP No.3068/20 Devendra Kumar Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-14-RD-0969 RJ-14-EV-0308
97	276	CRLMP No.3069/20 Purshootam Lal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-14-RC-7178 RJ-14-EV-0288
98	278	CRLMP No.3093/20 Hargyan Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-2474
99	279	CRLMP No.3094/20 Jainarayan Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-8363
100	282	CRLMP No.3107/20 FirojKhan Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-25-RB-5373
101	283	CRLMP No.3108/20 Fhul Mohammad Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	Chasis No.HNY4200174 7EP
102	284	CRLMP No.3116/20 Mohammad Akaram Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-25-RB-6655
103	285	CRLMP No.3117/20 Afajal BegVs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-25-RB-6214
104	286	CRLMP No.3118/20 Amritlal Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-25-RB-8051
105	288	CRLMP No.3130/20 Antaram Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	Chasis No.MBNGAJDUL RM00177
106	289	CRLMP No.3131/20	Tractor with	RJ-25-RB-9563

¶149

		(23 of 36)	[C	RLMP-397/2020]
		Shakil BegVs. State	Trolley
107	290	CRLMP No.3136/20 Jasram Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-26-RB-6679
108	291	CRLMP No.3137/20 Heera Lal Nayak Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-02-RD-5385
109	292	CRLMP No.3183/20 HemrajVs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-25-RB-5272
110	293	CRLMP No.3184/20 Rattiram Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-25-RB-8223
111	294	CRLMP No.3196/20 HansrajVs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-26-RB-8979
112	296	CRLMP No.3216/20 Jitendra Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	Chasis No.MEA8D061E L1266994
113	297	CRLMP No.3217/20 Mukesh Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-25-RB-2068
114	298	CRLMP No.3218/20 Premsankar Saini Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-25-RB-3643
115	299	CRLMP No.3222/20 Heera Lal Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-14-RD-2295
116	300	CRLMP No.3229/20 Rambabu Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-29-RB-3624
117	301	CRLMP No.3230/20 Bharatlal Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	Chasis No.MEA8DO61E L2292606
118	302	CRLMP No.3234/20 Jagdeesh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-14-RD-1973 RJ-14-EV-0039
119	303	CRLMP No.3241/20 Jaisingh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-14-RD-3651 RJ-14-EV-0050
120	304	CRLMP No.3242/20 HemrajVs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-34-RB-1047 RJ-34-EV-0064
121	305	CRLMP No.3256/20 ShivrajMeena Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-34-RB-0794 RJ-34-EV-0630
122	306	CRLMP No.3271/2020 Kamlesh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-1686
123	307	CRLMP No.3274/2020 Ramswaroop Meena Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-29-RB-4560
124	308	CRLMP No.3286/2020 Sanwarmal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-7913
125	309	CRLMP No.3288/2020 Gangadhar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-5100
126	310	CRLMP No.3289/2020 Devkishan Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-7324
127	311	CRLMP No.3293/2020 Jaisingh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-29-RB-2594
128	312	CRLMP No.3299/2020 Vikram Singh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-34-RB-2165 RJ-34-EV-0268

¶150

		(24 of 36)	[C	RLMP-397/2020]
129	313	CRLMP No.3300/2020 Surendra Meena Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RD-4915
130	314	CRLMP No.3303/2020 Ravindra Singh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-08-RA-5359 RJ-25-EV-0037
131	315	CRLMP No.2214/2020 Surgyan Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-4652
132	316	CRLMP No.3330/2020 Shivlal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-7330
133	317	CRLMP No.3350/2020 Bharat Lal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RD-5684
134	318	CRLMP No.3349/2020 Ramshaya Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-8017
135	319	CRLMP No.3352/2020 Gajanand Meena Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-34-RB-1448
136	320	CRLMP No.3353/20 Ramraj Keer & Ors. Vs. State	Tractor with trolley Tractor with trolley	RJ-15-RA-9986 RJ-26-RB-1887
			Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RA-9032
137	321	CRLMP No.3354/2020 Kishansahay Meena Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-34-RB-2390
138	322	CRLMP No.3374/2020 ManojKumar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-6002
139	323	CRLMP No.4756/2020 Manoj Kumar Meena Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-6002
140	324	CRLMP No.3379/2020 Laxman Lal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RC-5638
141	325	CRLMP No.3406/2020 Raju Lal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-14-RC-5686 RJ-14-EV-0032
142	326	CRLMP No.3408/2020 Ram Prasad Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-19-RE-0738 RJ-26-EV-0631
143	327	CRLMP No.3416/2020 Dharmendra Kumar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-34-RB-1770
144	329	CRLMP No.3459/2020 Irfan Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-7273
145	330	CRLMP No.3463/2020 Gyrashi Lal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-7982
146	331	CRLMP No.3465/2020 Gabru Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-3421
147	332	CRLMP No.3466/2020 Mahendra Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-3719
148	333	CRLMP No.3467/2020 Tejmal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-7595
149	334	CRLMP No.3475/2020 Gaindilal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RC-6772

¶151

		(25 of 36)		[CRLMP-397/2020]
150	335	CRLMP No.3482/2020 Mukesh Kumar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with CHASIS NO. MEA8D061KK12 53191
151	337	CRLMP No.3499/2020 Vinod Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-25-RB-7843
152	338	CRLMP No.3504/2020 Sandeep Kumar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-02-RD-9280
153	339	CRLMP No.3510/2020 Mangi Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-25-RB-8785
154	340	CRLMP No.3511/2020 RoopSingh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-25-RA-9436
155	343	CRLMP No.3636/2020 Dharmendra Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-25-RB-5033
156	344	CRLMP No.3640/2020 GirirajPrasad Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-34-RB-0733
157	345	CRLMP No.3675/2020 Raju Lal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-05-RC-3985 RJ-05-EV-0055
158	346	CRLMP No.3697/2020 Swastik Krishi Kendra Vs. State	Demo Tractor	RJ-20-TC-412
159	347	CRLMP No.3700/2020 Ashok Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-26-RB-9980
160	348	CRLMP No.3716/2020 Deepak Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-25-RB-4840
161	349	CRLMP No.3767/2020 Badri Prasad Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-29-RB-3090
162	351	CRLMP No.3791/2020 Prahlad Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-14-RC-8341 RJ-14-EB-0417
163	352	CRLMP No.3810/2020 Ram Prasad Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with ENGINE NO. ZKG2KAA6753 CHASIS NO. MBNAAAJXAKZG07 780
164	353	CRLMP No.3811/2020 Lalaram Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-14-RD-5288
165	354	CRLMP No.3812/2020 Devlal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-26-RB-7999
166	355	CRLMP No.4268/2020 Chhajuram Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-12-RA-7258
167	356	CRLMP No.3813/20 Shankar Lal Meena Vs. State	Trolley	UNREGISTERED
168	358	CRLMP No.3830/2020 Bannu Pathan Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-21-RF-5466
169	359	CRLMP No.3839/2020 Kajodmal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-29-RA-7247
170	360	CRLMP No.3844/2020 Roshan Nath Vs. State	Tractor trolley	with RJ-26-RB-0880
171 172	361 362	CRLMP No.3845/2020 DeshrajVs. State CRLMP No.3846/2020	Tractor trolley Tractor	with RJ-26-RB-7459 with RJ-26-RB-6288

¶152

		(26 of 36) Lalidevi Vs. State	[C trolley	RLMP-397/2020]
173	363	CRLMP No.3847/2020 Kishanlal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-6137
174	364	CRLMP No.3848/2020 Ramdeva Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-6229
175	365	CRLMP No.3849/2020 Kaluram Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	ENGINE NO. NKF2KLJ0618 CHASIS NO. MBNAAAJGLKJE075 42
176	367	CRLMP No.3880/2020 Mohammad Saleem Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-21-RD-0196
177	373	CRLMP No.3939/2020 Vikas Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-9267
178	374	CRLMP No.3942/2020 Brijmohan Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RA-9806 RJ-25-EV-1754
179	375	CRLMP No.3944/2020 Hanuman Prasad Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-5492
180	376	CRLMP No.3945/20 LekhrajMali Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-4656
181	377	CRLMP No.3947/20 Banwari Lal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-4781 RJ-25-EV-2312
182	378	CRLMP No.3949/20 Jagram Vs. State	Trolley	Unregistered
183	379	CRLMP No.3950/20 Zahir Khan Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-6577 RJ-25-EV-0156
184	380	CRLMP No.3951/20 Vinod kumar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-29-RB-3703
185	381	CRLMP No.3952/20 DevrajVs. State	Trolley	RJ-25-EV-1444
186	382	CRLMP No.3953/20 Jagdeesh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-25-RB-2213
187	383	CRLMP No.3966/20 Jaisingh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-14-RD-3384
188	384	CRLMP No.3968/20 Sitaram Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-37-RA-6967
189	385	CRLMP No.3972/20 Kailash Chandra Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-17-RB-7865
190	386	CRLMP No.3973/20 Mukesh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RA-7687
191	388	CRLMP No.3976/20 Narsi Gurjar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-34-RB-1962
192	389	CRLMP No.3980/20 Namonarayan Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RA-4513
193	390	CRLMP No.3994/20 Balbeer Singh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-01-RB-2873
194	391	CRLMP No.4004/20	Tractor	RJ-25-RB-3144
		Prakash Vs. State	Trolley	RJ-29-EV-0230

¶153

		(27 of 36)		[CRLMP-397/2020]
195	392	CRLMP No.4009/20 RamroopVs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-25-RB-5789
196	393	CRLMP No.4010/20 Niranjan Lal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-34-RA-6454
197	394	CRLMP No.4012/20 Asrar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-34-RA-8884
198	395	CRLMP No.4014/20 Asrar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-34-RB-0055
199	396	CRLMP No.4018/20 Ravi Kumar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-29-RB-0994
200	397	CRLMP No.4019/20 Mohammad Talim Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-21-RF-3626 RJ-25-EV-1892
201	399	CRLMP No.4023/20 Kalamuddin Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-02-RC-1435 RJ-25-EV-0200
202	400	CRLMP No.4024/20 RamrajVs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-25-RB-8553
203	401	CRLMP No.4026/20 Shivjiram Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-25-RB-8299
204	402	CRLMP No.4027/20 DhanrajVs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-08-RB-5805
205	403	CRLMP No.4029/20 Lacchi Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-25-RB-8624
206	404	CRLMP No.4031/20 Lekhraj Singh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	ENG. NO- NKF2KLJ0802 CHA.NO.- MBNAAAJGLKJF 07747
207	407	CRLMP No.4053/20 Laxman Gurjar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-27-RB-2553
208	408	CRLMP No.4059/20 Lalaram @ Lal Chand Vs. State	Tractor trolley	ENG. NO- NKM2ELE0044 CHA.NO- MBNAAAEALKJA 04383
209	409	CRLMP No.4060/20 ShivrajVs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-1374
210	410	CRLMP No.4101/20 Shankar Singh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-8115
211	411	CRLMP No.4103/20 SorajVs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-15-RA-5961
212	412	CRLMP No.4106/20 Niranjanlal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-34-RB-0922
213	413	CRLMP No.4109/20 Man Singh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-29-RB-3076
214	414	CRLMP No.4110/20 Ramjilal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-14-RB-5707
215	415	CRLMP No.4112/20 SurajSingh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-17-RB-4924
216	416	CRLMP No.4127/20	Tractor	RJ-26-RB-6721

¶154

		(28 of 36) Buddhiprakash Pahadiy	trolley	[CRLMP-397/2020]
217	417	CRLMP No.4131/20 Ramesh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-6610
218	419	CRLMP No.4144/20 Adisaal Meena Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-29-RA-6002
219	420	CRLMP No.4149/20 Habib Khan Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-11-GB-0959
220	421	CRLMP No.4151/20 Brahmanand Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-7146
221	422	CRLMP No.4179/20 Shankarlal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-9498
222	423	CRLMP No.4180/20 Bhim Singh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-51-RA-5543
223	425	CRLMP No.4208/20	Tractor	RJ-26-RB-2379
		Hanuman Vs.State	trolley
224	426	CRLMP No.4207/20 Hansraj Vs. State	Tractor	RJ-26-RA-7409
225	427	CRLMP No.4209/20 Ram Singh Vs. State	trolley Tractor trolley	RJ-26-R-6742
226	428	CRLMP No.4210/20 Mohammed Ahsan Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-0500
227	429	CRLMP No.4229/20 Hanuman Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-5861
228	430	CRLMP No.3706/20 Mukesh Vs State	Tractor	RJ-14-RD-5637
229	431	. CRLMP No.3707/20 Mahendra Vs. State	trolley Tractor trolley	RJ-25-RA-7498
230	432	CRLMP No.4230/20 Dashrath Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-8502
231	433	CRLMP No.4231/20 Sukhpal Vs. State	Tractor	RJ-26-RB-6317
232	434	CRLMP No.4232/20 Kana Ram Vs. State	trolley	RJ-26-RB-6595
233	435	CRLMP No.4233/20 Ram Niwas Vs. State	Tractor trolley Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-2373
234	437	CRLMP No.4240/20 Babulal Meena Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-34-RB-0799
235	438	CRLMP No.4241/20 Chotu Ram Gurjar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-14-RD-3219
236	439	CRLMP No.4281/20 BajrangLal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-17-RB-6576
237	440	CRLMP No.4283/20 BajrangLal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-17-RB-4271

¶155

		(29 of 36)	[C	RLMP-397/2020]
238	441	CRLMP No.4300/20 Badri Narayan Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-14-RD-4242
239	442	CRLMP No.4304/20 Akbar Khan Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-25-RB-8290
240	443	CRLMP No.4306/20 Dinesh Kumar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-25-RB-7659
241	445	CRLMP No.4322/20 Kedar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-25-RB-5115
242	446	CRLMP No.4324/20 Ramji Lal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	CHA.NO.- MBNAAAJGLKJG 08103
243	447	CRLMP No.4332/20 Rajesh Kumar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RA-8384
244	448	CRLMP No.4336/20 Pappu Lal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-14-RC-4980
245	449	CRLMP No.4361/20 Khem RajVs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-03-RA-9787
246	451	CRLMP No.4364/20 Kana Mali Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-09-RC-3504 RJ-25-EV-2093
247	452	CRLMP No.4368/20 Ghasi Lal Jat Vs. State	Tractor with trolley Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RA-8596 RJ-26-RA-8597
248	453	CRLMP No.4379/20 Heera Lal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-14-RD-3360
249	454	CRLMP No.4380/20 Heera Lal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-14-RD-2295
250	457	CRLMP No.4399/20 Mukesh Kumar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-29-RB-4791
251	459	CRLMP No.4401/20 Ishwar Singh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-17-RC-3158
252	460	CRLMP No.4412/20 Lalaram Gurjar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-27-RA-9825
253	462	CRLMP No.4418/20 Mahesh Meena Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-34-RA-5891
254	463	CRLMP No.4423/23 Harful Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-03-RA-8425
255	464	CRLMP No.5071/20 Ritesh Kumar Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-6743 RJ-25-EV-0649
256	466	CRLMP No.4443/20 GirirajPrasad Vs. State	Tractor trolley	CHA.NO.MBNAA AJGLKJF07549
257	467	CRLMP No.4461/20 MeghrajVs. State	Tractor trolley	CHA.NO.MBNAJ 48AFLTG40388
258	468	CRLMP No.4501/20 Jagdish Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-3986
259	469	CRLMP No.4533/20 Mahendra Kumar Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-29-RB-4697
260	470	CRLMP No.4534/20	Tractor	CHA.NO.-

¶156

		(30 of 36)	[C	RLMP-397/2020]
		Kailash Chand Vs. State	Trolley	AZJSH9192175 3 RJ-25-EV-1694
261	471	CRLMP No.4579/20 IndrajVs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-29-RB-5208
262	472	CRLMP No.4580/20 Guman Singh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-29-RB-5317 RJ-29-EV-0579
263	473	CRLMP No.4581/20 Rajesh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-34—RA-6602 RJ-29-EV-0827
264	474	CRLMP No.4606/20 Suresh Kumar Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley Tractor with Trolley	RJ-25-RB-6207 RJ-01-RA-8562
265	475	CRLMP No.4609/20 Ramphool Mali Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RA-6513
266	477	CRLMP No.4624/20 Dinesh Kumar Vs. State	Trolley	UNREGISTERED
267	478	CRLMP No.4625/20 Mukesh Nagar Vs. State	Trolley	RJ-17-EA-1789
268	479	CRLMP No.4626/20 Labhu Bai Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-17-RC-0100
269	480	CRLMP No.4627/20 Laxman Singh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-17-RB-6145
270	481	CRLMP No.4628/20 Rajesh Meena Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-34-RB-2588 RJ-34-EV-0609
271	482	CRLMP No.4629/20 Prem RajVs. State	Trolley	UNREGISTERED
272	483	CRLMP No.4630/20 Khem RajVs. State	Trolley	UNREGISTERED
273	484	CRLMP No.4632/20 Banti lal Vs. State	Trolley	UNREGISTERED
274	485	CRLMP No.4633/20 Mohan Singh Vs. State	Trolley	UNREGISTERED
275	488	CRLMP No.4637/20 Gordhan Singh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-17-RB-8803
276	489	CRLMP No.4639/20 Jai Singh Vs. State	Trolley	UNREGISTERED
277	490	CRLMP No.4640/20 Dharmendra Vs. State	Tractor trolley	CHA.NO.- MBNGAAJXNLJB 00169
278	492	CRLMP No.4647/20 Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-14-RB-7810
279	493	CRLMP No.4648/20 Jahid Khan Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-47-RA-0683
280	494	CRLMP No.4653/20 Hanuman Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-25-RB-8378
281	495	CRLMP No.4657/20 Heera Lal Vs. State	Trolley	UNREGISTERED
282	498	CRLMP No.4674/20 Shiv Singh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	MP-14-AC-5238

¶157

		(31 of 36)	[C	RLMP-397/2020]
283	499	CRLMP No.4676/20 Karu Lal Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-17-R-5758
284	500	CRLMP No.4677/20 Prabhat Singh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-17-RC-0263
285	501	CRLMP No.4682/20 Meharban Singh Vs. State	Trolley	UNREGISTERED
286	502	CRLMP No.4684/20 RafiqKhan Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-17-RA-1999
287	503	CRLMP No.4685/20 Deepu Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-6091
288	505	CRLMP No.4687/20 Rajendra Singh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-17-RB-5163
289	506	CRLMP No.4695/20 Ishwar Singh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-26-RB-3557
290	507	CRLMP No.4696/20 Dharamveer Singh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	UP-80-EM-3493
291	508	CRLMP No.4706/20 RamrajVs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-25-RB-7280
292	509	CRLMP No.4721/20 Sonveer Vs.State	Tractor trolley	RJ-11-RB-0241
293	510	CRLMP No.4720/20 Naresh Vs. State	Tractor trolley	UP-80-EU-0492
294	511	CRLMP No.4722/20 Ravindra Vs. State	Tractor trolley	RJ-11-RA-9356
295	514	CRLMP No.4739/2020 Mahaveer Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	UP85/BK0983
296	515	CRLMP No.4740/2020 Brij Mohan Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	CHASIS NO. MBNAAAJGLKJG -08004 CHASIS NO. MBNAAAJGLKJK -04647
297	516	CRLMP No.4753/2020 Kajod Mal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-29-RB-1951
298	518	CRLMP No.4784/20 Vikram Yadav Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-20-RA-5899
299	520	CRLMP No.4788/2020 HansrajVs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-34-RB-0426
300	521	CRLMP No.4794/2020 Parasram Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-4915 RJ-25-EV-2132
301	522	CRLMP No.4795/2020 Shoji Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RA-5016
302	523	CRLMP No.4703/2020 Ramavatar Meena Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-07-RC-8553
303	524	CRLMP No.4796/2020 Vikramsingh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-7648
304	525	CRLMP No.4807/2020	Tractor with	RJ-37-RA-8413

¶158

(32 of 36)

¶159

[CRLMP-397/2020]

¶160

		Hanuman Singh Vs. State	trolley
305	526	CRLMP No.4808/2020 Ram RajVs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-08-RB-2967
306	527	CRLMP No.4811/2020 Bhom Singh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-5256
307	528	CRLMP No.4812/2020 Jagmohan Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-34-RA-8322 RJ-34-EV-0672
308	530	CRLMP No.4821/2020 Chhaju Lal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-6144
309	531	CRLMP No.4822/2020 Narayan Meena Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-29-RB-0827 RJ-29-EV-0104
310	533	CRLMP No.4835/2020 Panchu Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RC-0113
311	535	CRLMP No.4848/2020 Kishanlal mali Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-8085
312	537	CRLMP No.4894/2020 Arjun Lal Vs. State	Tractor	RJ-26-RB-9983
313	538	CRLMP No.4895/2020 DharamrajVs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-8791
314	541	CRLMP No.4917/2020 Mukhtyar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	CHASIS NO. MBNGAAJXNLJD 00609
315	543	CRLMP No.4926/2020 Namonarayan Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-3870
316	545	CRLMP No.4936/2020 Bheemsain Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-11-RA-9416
317	546	CRLMP No.4939/2020 Khushiram Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RD-5050
318	548	CRLMP No.4976/2020 vishvendra Vs. State	Tractor Chasis No. Trolley	MBNAK48ACKT N27594 RJ-34-EV-0490
319	549	CRLMP No.4979/2020 Bharat Lal Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-2658 RJ-25-EV-0108
320	550	CRLMP No.4980/2020 Kailash Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-2073 RJ-25-EV-1815
321	551	CRLMP No.4985/2020 Anil Kumar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-8728
322	552	CRLMP No.4989/2020 Sanwalram Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	CHASIS NO. MEA8D061EL12 66979
323	555	CRLMP No.4995/2020 Mahesh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-7971 RJ-25-EV-0723
324	558	CRLMP No.5017/2020 Harimohan Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-8572
325	559	CRLMP No.5018/2020 Fateh Singh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-7320
326	560	CRLMP No.5019/20 Jagdish Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RA-4832

¶161

		(33 of 36)	[C	RLMP-397/2020]
327	561	CRLMP No.5020/2020 Dayaram Vs. State	Trolley	Uregistered
328	562	CRLMP No.5022/2020 Battilal Vs. State	Trolley	RJ-25-EV-0754
329	563	CRLMP No.5023/2020 Rajesh Kumar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-29-RB-3499
330	564	CRLMP No.5025/2020 Ghanshyam Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-5916
331	565	CRLMP No.5026/2020 Shyojiram Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-08-RA-7025
332	566	CRLMP No.5027/2020 AjayKumar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-8964
333	567	CRLMP No.5030/2020 Kanhaiyalal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RA-5382
334	568	CRLMP No.5031/2020 Panchu Gurjar Ram Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RA-8471
335	569	CRLMP No.5034/2020 HansrajVs. State	Trolley	RJ-25-EV-0669
336	570	CRLMP No.5035/2020 RamrajMeena Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-3416
337	571	CRLMP No.5037/2020 Buddhiprakash Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-7513
338	572	CRLMP No.5038/2020 Rajendra Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RC-2898
339	573	CRLMP No.5039/2020 DharmrajVs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-34-RB-2738
340	574	CRLMP No.5040/2020 Ramkishan Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-8527
341	575	CRLMP No.5042/2020 Amar Singh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-02-RD-3658
342	576	CRLMP No.5043/2020 Sonilal Gurjar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RC-0213
343	579	CRLMP No.5046/2020 Rajendra Meena Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RB-9414
344	580	CRLMP No.5047/2020 Ramkesh Meena Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-8133
345	581	CRLMP No.5048/2020 RamrajVs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-6448
346	582	CRLMP No.5049/2020 Dinesh kumar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-7827
347	583	CRLMP No.5050/2020 SirajKhan Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RA-2482
348	584	CRLMP No.5053/2020 vinod kumar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-08-RB-9331
349	585	CRLMP No.5054/2020 Sanjay Vs. State	Pet.1 Tractor Pet.2 Trolley	RJ-25-RB-8659 RJ-25-EV-0082

¶162

		(34 of 36)	[C	RLMP-397/2020]
350	586	CRLMP No.5055/2020 Banwari Lal Jat Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-8376
351	587	CRLMP No.5056/2020 Madanlal Choudhary Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-08-RB-6064
352	588	CRLMP No.5057/2020 Kalya Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RC-8380
353	589	CRLMP No.5058/2020 Devnarayan Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-1899
354	591	CRLMP No.5060/2020 Jogal Kishor Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RC-0089 RJ-25-EV-2242
355	592	CRLMP No.5061/2020 Rameshchand Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-8563
356	593	CRLMP No.5062/2020 Rajaram Vs. State	Trolley	RJ-29-EV-0524
357	594	CRLMP No.5063/2020 Kamla Devi Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-6341
358	595	CRLMP No.5064/2020 ShivrajVs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-34-RB-1161
359	596	CRLMP No.5066/2020 Mukesh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-8510
360	597	CRLMP No.5067/2020 Ramavtar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-08-RB-2320
361	598	CRLMP No.5068/2020 Harikesh Meena Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	CHASIS NO. MBNAAAJVALRM 00530
362	599	CRLMP No.5069/2020 Rajesh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RC-0271
363	600	CRLMP No.5072/2020 RamswaroopVs. State	Trolley	Unregistered
364	601	CRLMP No.5076/2020 Dinesh Kumar Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	CHASIS NO. MBNGAAEKPLJD 00139 RJ-25-EV-0105
365	602	CRLMP No.5077/2020 Rameshwar Vs. State	Trolley	Unregistered
366	603	CRLMP No.5078/2020 Rameshwar Vs. State	Trolley	Unregistered
367	604	CRLMP No.5079/2020 Jairam Vs. State	Trolley	Unregistered
368	605	CRLMP No.5080/2020 Paluram Vs. State	Trolley	Unregistered
369	606	CRLMP No.5081/2020 Babulal Vs. State	Trolley	Unregistered
370	607	CRLMP No.5082/2020 Ram Lal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-29-RB-5917
371	608	CRLMP No.5083/2020 Babulaal Vs. State	Trolley	Unregistered
372	609	CRLMP No.5084/2020	Tractor with	CHASIS NO.

¶163

		(35 of 36)	[C	RLMP-397/2020]
		Phoolsingh Vs. State	trolley	MBNAAAJBUJJC00 303
373	610	CRLMP No.5085/2020 Madanlal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-6537
374	C1	CRLMP No.2175/2020 Charat Singh vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-02-RE-2931
375	C2	CRLMP No.2249/2020 Kamlesh Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-3469 RJ-24-EV-2202
376	C3	CRLMP No.2331/2020 Ram Singh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-34RB-2798
377	C4	CRLMP No.2350/2020 Rameshi Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-34-RB-2885 RJ-25-EV-1030
378	C5	CRLMP No.2359/2020 Bharat Lal Meena Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-34-RB-3230 RJ-34-EV-0027
379	C6	CRLMP No.2526/2020 Dharmendra Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-11-RB-0651
380	C10	CRLMP No.2639/2020 Sardar Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-25-RB-6446 RJ-25-EV-0939
381	C14	CRLMP No.2829/2020 Harpal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-6314
382	C15	CRLMP No.2845/2020 Devlal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RA-3690
383	C17	CRLMP No.2887/2020 Prakash Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-34-RB-3299
384	C18	CRLMP No.2888/2020 Sagir Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-34-RB-2045
385	C19	CRLMP No.2929/2020 Suresh Singh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-8960
386	C20	CRLMP No.2940/2020 Amba Lal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RD-0429
387	C21	CRLMP No.2943/2020 Ram Babu Yadav Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-02-RE-5561
388	C22	CRLMP No.2947/2020 Dev Kishan Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-5732
389	C23	CRLMP No.2976/2020 Ashok Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-8059
390	C24	CRLMP No.2987/2020 Vishnu Kumar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-8668
391	C25	CRLMP No.3043/2020 Mangilal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RB-7937
392	C26	CRLMP No.3049/2020 Asharam Vs. State	Tractor with trolley Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-3848 RJ-26-RB-3753
393	C27	CRLMP No.3783/2020 Soraj Vs. State	Tractor with trolley Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-7084 RJ-14-RD-3588
394	C30	CRLMP No.3147/2020 Ramsingh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-9287
395	C31	CRLMP No.3238/2020 Hariram Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RB-3684
396	C32	CRLMP No.3250/2020	Tractor with	RJ-01-RA-5235

¶164

		(36 of 36)	[C	RLMP-397/2020]
		Bhanwar Lal Vs. State	trolley
397	C33	CRLMP No.3295/2020 Chand Mal Saini Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-44-RA-0744 RJ-25-RA-7533 RJ-34-R-1406 RJ-26-RB-1960 RJ-26-RB-1141
398	C34	CRLMP No.3637/2020 Jagdish Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-4502
399	C35	CRLMP No.4143/2020 Motilal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-26-RA-3774
400	C36	CRLMP No.4145/2020 Kanahiya Lal Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-08-RB-2877
401	C37	CRLMP No.4192/2020 Kamlesh Vs. State	Trolley	RJ-34-EV-0017
402	C38	CRLMP No.4193/2020 Lala Meena Vs. State	Tractor	RJ-34-RF-6575
403	C39	CRLMP No.4196/2020 Balaji Construction Com. Vs. State	Tractor	RJ-25-RB-7156
404	C40	CRLMP No.4197/2020 Budhram Meena Vs. State	Trolley	RJ-34-EV-0182
405	C42	CRLMP No.4258/2020 Rajaram Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RC-4913
406	C44	CRLMP No.4393/20 Jai Singh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-8788
407	C45	CRLMP No.4398/20 Devendra Kumar Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-29-RA-6705
408	C46	CRLMP No.4437/2020 Suresh Saini Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-08-RB-9128
409	C50	CRLMP No.4569/2020 Mukesh Choudhary Vs. State	Tractor with trolley Tractor with trolley	RJ-14-RD-4797 RJ-14-RD-3610
410	C51	CRLMP No.4743/2020 Gordhan Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-34-RB-1358
411	C52	CRLMP No.4746/2020 Rishikesh Vs. State	Tractor with trolley	RJ-25-RB-4395
412	C55	CRLMP No.5111/2020 Ghamandi Vs. State	Trolley	UNREGISTERED
413	C56	CRLMP No.5112/2020 Kaduram Meena Vs. State	Tractor with Trolley	RJ-34-RA-8971
414	C8	CRLMP No.5052/20 Ratiram Vs. State	Tractor	RJ-26-RB-6997
415	512	CRLMP No.4727/20 Sitaram Vs. State	Tractor Trolley	RJ-29-RB-4199 RJ-29-EV-0317

Kaduram Meena Son of Shri Laxman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaduram Meena Son of Shri Laxman 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

Dr Pramod Kumar Singh Vs University of Raj and Ors.

Deepsikha Kalwar W/O Shri Sushil Kumar Kalwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Lata D/O Shri Jagdish Kharwad Vs State of Rajasthan

J N U Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Panchu S/O Ramnath Vs State of Rajasthan

Ghamandi Son of Ramkaran Vs State of Rajasthan