Allowed

Mohd Umar v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC16 Apr 2015WPCRL/1056/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal writ petition to quash orders confiscating a tractor trolley found carrying illegal mineral. It directed the vehicle be released to the owner into his custody subject to executing a personal bond, prohibition on transfer/allocation, and restrictions on unlawful use.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the seized tractor trolley be given to the petitioner in its custody upon execution of a personal bond of five lakh rupees and compliance with specified conditions.

Mohd Umar Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others — Land Acquisition | Uttarakhand HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1056 of 2014

¶4

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

¶5

Mohd. Umar .…….…… Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Uttarakhand and others …………. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate, present for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Ms. Shruti Joshi, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondents.

¶10

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

¶11

The applicant, by means of present criminal writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 17.05.2014 and 15.07.2014, passed by respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 2 respectively.

¶12

As per challani report (Annexur-4 to the writ petition), one tractor trolley bearing registration no. UK-04 CA-3165 with Trolley No. UK-04 CA-6205 was found carrying illegal mines and minerals from the river bed on 04.04.2014, at 05:30 A.M., by a team comprising of forest officials, police officials and revenue officials. Accordingly, the tractor trolley was seized. The same was confiscated by

¶13

¶14

the Divisional Forest Officer, West Tarai Forest Division, Ramnagar under Section 52A of the Indian Forest Act (Uttarakhand amendment), vide order dated 17.05.2014. An appeal was preferred before the Conservator of Forests, Haldwani against the same. The Appellate Authority / Conservator of Forests, Western Circle, Uttarakhand, Haldwani dismissed the appeal no. 39 of 2014-15. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal writ petition has been filed on behalf of the writ petitioner.

¶15

It is undisputed fact that the writ petitioner is the owner of the tractor trolley in question. Whereas the incident allegedly took place on 04.04.2014, it is the statement of learned counsel for the writ petitioner that no criminal complaint has been instituted against the writ petitioner by the forest authorities so far. Yet, learned counsel for the writ petitioner undertakes that the writ petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the forest authorities or the Court, if the same is released in his favour. It is highly unlikely that the forest officials will not file a criminal complaint case against the writ petitioner in connection with the offence, which allegedly took place on 04.04.2014, at 05:30 A.M., in respect of offences punishable under Sections 26, 41, 42, 52 of the Indian Forest Act.

¶16

Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with such issue of disposal of property, time and again, holding that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the case property in the custody of the police (in the instant case the forest department). In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of

¶17

¶18

Gujarat, (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 283 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “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.” This Court is, therefore, of the view that tractor trolley should be given in the supurdagi (custody) of it’s owner, subject to certain conditions.

¶19

Criminal writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Tractor trolley is directed to be given in the supurdagi of it’s owner, subject to following conditions:

¶20

(i) The owner shall execute personal bond of rupees five lakh to the effect that he will produce the same before the Investigating Officer or the court concerned, if and when required to do so, failing which, he will be required to pay such sum in favour of the State Government.

¶21

(ii) The owner shall neither sell, mortgage or otherwise transfer the tractor trolley to any other person, nor change/alter it’s shape during the pendency of the criminal case against him.

¶22

(iii) The tractor trolley shall not be used in any unlawful activity like illegal mining etc. If the tractor trolley is found to be used for any unlawful purpose, this order of supurdagi shall stand withdrawn without reference to this Court. In that case, the forest department shall have the authority to seize the same once again.

¶23

¶24

With the directions as above, the criminal writ

¶25

petition stands disposed of.

¶26

(U.C.Dhyani,J.) 16.04.2015

¶27

Kaushal

¶28

Mohd Umar v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Umar v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

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

Rahul Amin Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vijay Sharma Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Abdul Salam Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Satish Chaudhary @ Mintu Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Smt Reshama Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Dinesh Khandka and Another Vs State Of Uttarakhand