The High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking release of a confiscated vehicle. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the court held that no case for the grant of a writ exists when the vehicle is lawfully confiscated and the accused has pleaded guilty.
Vehicle not released; criminal writ petition and stay petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023/RJJD/013959]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 20/2023
Heeralal S/o Shri Taru Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Kolasa West Ps Bajju Dist. Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. | Pritam Joshi |
|---|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. | N.S. Bhati |
| Mr. 3 |
D.S. Jasol, for respondents No.2 & |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
08/05/2023
The present criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Divisional Forest Conservator, Bikaner, who dismissed the application of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned Gram Nyayalaya, Kolayat, District Bikaner, by which the learned Gram Nyayalaya has convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 41 & 42 of Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the competent authority in the year 2014 and thereafter he preferred an appeal, which was decided by the Divisional Chief Forest Conservator, Bikaner vide order dated
[2023/RJJD/013959]
[CRLW-20/2023]
(2 of 2)
18.11.2022 but the vehicle has not been released and the condition of the vehicle is deteriorating day by day. Therefore, the vehicle in question may kindly be released in favour of the petitioner.
Per contra learned counsel Mr. D.S. Jasol submits that the Divisional Chief Forest Conservator, Bikaner has rightly passed the order dated 18.11.2022 and the vehicle has also rightly been confiscated by the competent authority. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on a decision of Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambal Abhyaran Vs. Narottam Singh decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26.03.2019, in which it is mentioned that if the vehicle has been confiscated and the accused has pleaded guilty, then there was no question to release the vehicle in favour of the accused.
I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the material available on record.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambal Abhyaran Vs. Narottam Singh (supra), in which it is clearly mentioned that when the vehicle was confiscated and the accused pleaded guilty then there was no question to release the vehicle in favour of the accused. Therefore, no case of grant of criminal writ is made out. Hence, the present criminal writ petition is dismissed.
Stay petition is also decided accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
84-Ishan/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the confiscated vehicle is liable to be released to the petitioner who pleaded guilty.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambal Abhyaran Vs. Narottam SinghDistinguished¶23
Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambal Abhyaran Vs. Narottam Singh
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Heeralal
State Of Rajasthan
Astt. Conservator Of Forest
Divisional Chief Forest Conservator
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
