Dismissed

Ramkishore v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajasthan HC3 Sept 2024CRLMP/3451/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition was dismissed. The High Court held that the revisional court did not commit any error in directing the petitioner to deposit the compounding fee and penalty amount as a condition for releasing the seized tractor and loader when the vehicle was interspersed between non-compounding offences and a terminating charge.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.

Ramkishore Vs State of Rajasthan through P P — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:36937]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3451/2017

¶4

Ramkishore S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Meena, R/o Bhamuwas, Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa, Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Swati Sakhare, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Dy. GA

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶11

Order

¶12

03/09/2024

¶13

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 01.07.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Lalsot, District Dausa in criminal revision No.22/2017, whereby the revisional court while modifying the order dated 08.06.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Lalsot, District Dausa dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 457 Cr.P.C., directed that the petitioner’s tractor No.RJ-29-RB-0263 alongwith loader be released on supurdgi , provided the petitioner obtains a receipt after depositing the compounding fee and penalty with the department concerned.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle of the petitioner could be released only on deposition of penalty/royalty so determined by the mining department but the revisional court proceeded beyond the parameters and directed to

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JP:36937]

[CRLMP-3451/2017]

deposit the compounding fee, therefore, the impugned order liable to be set aside.

¶19

Learned Dy. GA has opposed the same and submits that the petitioner did not deposit the amount of penalty and compounding fee as envisaged under the law.

¶20

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Dy. GA for the State and perused impugned order.

¶21

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the revisional court has not committed any error in directing the petitioner to deposit the compounding fee as well as penalty amount at the time of releasing the vehicle in question.

¶22

So, present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

¶23

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶24

Jatin /247

Ramkishore v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkishore v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Chand Vs State

Keshanta @ Chidi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Bharosi Vs Ram Singh and Ors.

Anand Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Dharamsingh S/O Sitaram , Vs State of Rajasthan

Manju Devi D/O Sh. Ramkaran Yadav, Vs State of Rajasthan