Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Raju Lal S/O Shri Radhakishan vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 November, 2020
(1 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7887/2019
Raju Lal S/o Shri Radhakishan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Bus
Stand Ke Pass, Jhilai, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Forest, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Appellant Authority Cum Chief Conservator Of Forest,
Ajmer.
3. The Authorized Officer, Cum Assistant Conservator Of
Forest, Tonk.
----Respondents
AND Other similar matters as per Schedule-A appended to this order This Order shall govern all the cases the particulars of which have been given in Schedule-A appended to this order.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shree Narayan Swami, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Bhardwaj, Mr. Rohit Khandelwal, Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Mr. Deepak Khandelwal, Mr. Sandeep Bansiwal, Mr. Sameer Sharma, Mr. Moti Lal Sharma, Mr. D.D.Khandelwal, Mr. Sandeep Jain, Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Mr. Krishan Kant sharma, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Mr. D K Dixit, Mr. Arvind Sharma, Mr. Man Singh Meena, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena, Mr. Umesh Dixit, Mr. Ashindra Gautam, Mr. Rohit Khandelwal, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Ms. Chhavi Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R.Meena, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 04/11/2020 (Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:28 PM) (2 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019]
1. All these petitions relate to the prayer for release of tractors and trolleys, which have been seized by the Police Authorities/Mining Authorities/Forest Officials for various reasons including carrying "bazri", by way of illegal mining in Rajasthan and selling out the same etc.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 well as judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat: (2002) 10 SCC 283.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:28 PM)
(3 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019]
6. 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.
7. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the judgments which have been cited at bar.
8. 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. Petition No.76/2014), decided on 23rd 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.
9. 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 (Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:28 PM) (4 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019] 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 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.
12. 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:
"54. Illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals:-(Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:28 PM)
(5 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019] (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:
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.
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 sub- rule (3) shall recover cost of mineral along with the compound fees as specified in sub-rule (3).
Provided also that where vehicle, equipment or mineral so seized is not released, the officer seizing the property or mineral shall make a report of such seizure within seventy two hours to his superior officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.
(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:
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."(Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:28 PM)
(6 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019]
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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 Nathulal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra).
18. This court finds that the observations made in Khem Singh (supra) were of interregnum in nature and the law laid down by (Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:28 PM) (7 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019] 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.
19. 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:-
"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:-
"4. The object and scheme of the various 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 (Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:29 PM) (8 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019] 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."
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.
10. To avoid a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest.
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 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.
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. (Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:29 PM)
(9 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019]
20. In Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd.:
(2001) 6 SCC 356, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"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:-
"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.
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. Hewwit (1947) 2 All.ER 270 and Penny vs. Nicholas (1950) 2 All.ER 89 to the following effect:-
"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..."
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 :-
(Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:29 PM)
(10 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019] "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)..."
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.
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 reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, hence the principle of per incuriam cannot be applied."
21. In Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi:
(2010) 9 SCC 385, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"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 (Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:29 PM) (11 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019] 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."
22. 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.
23. 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".
24. 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 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:-
451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.
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 (Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:29 PM) (12 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019] necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," property"
includes-
(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody,
(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.
457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property. (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. (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.
25. 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.
26. 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 (Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:29 PM) (13 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019] 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:-
"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.
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. 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:
"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 (Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:29 PM) (14 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019] 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."
In view thereof, the power is vested with the concerned Magistrate for release of seized vehicle.
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.
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:
(Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:29 PM)
(15 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019]
a) The concerned Police Station shall release the tractor and trolley to the person, who is the registered owner of the vehicle alone.
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.
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.
e) The petitioners shall furnish the photographs of the vehicle showing its number and colour etc.
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."
27. 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.
28. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the Court below are quashed and set aside. The tractor and trolley as mentioned in these petitions as per Schedule-A annexed to this order shall be released as per (Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:29 PM) (16 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019] aforesaid conditions laid down herein-above in Para 14(a) to (f) of Asharam's case (supra).
29. 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.
30. All pending applications also stand disposed off.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
NITIN /
(Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:29 PM)
(17 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019]
SCHEDULE - "A"
Sr. No. Item No. in Case Type Case No. Vehicle Type Vehicle Registration
cause list Number
dt.4.11.2020
1 125 CRLMP 7887/2019 Tractor with trolley RJ 26 RB 4184
2 126 CRLW 714/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 34 RB 0885
RJ 34 EV 0129
3 127 CRLR 877/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 17 RC 1180
4 128 CRLR 893/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 17 RB 8629
5 129 CRLR 894/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 17 RB 9156
6 130 CRLR 895/2020 Tractor with trolley MP 39 AA 1319
7 131 CRLR 896/2020 Tractor with trolley Engine
No.RHC2EBN2604
Chasis No.
CHNOAMBNMAAAEXP
HJC01141
8 132 CRLR 897/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 17 RB 1150
9 138 CRLR 987/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 17 RJ 7860
10 139 CRLR 988/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 17 RB 2999
11 141 CRLR 994/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 26 RA 6170
12 142 CRLR 995/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 26 RB 8531
13 143 CRLR 996/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 14 RD 0145
14 144 CRLR 999/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 17 RC 0448
Tractor with trolley RJ 17 RB 6094
15 145 CRLR 1000/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 47 RA 2213
16 146 CRLR 1002/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 34 RA 8760
17 148 CRLMP 2544/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 17 RB 0705
18 151 CRLMP 2892/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 34 RB 1450
RJ 34 EV 0117
19 154 CRLMP 5153/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 25 RB 6539
Tractor with trolley RJ 26 RB 5936
20 215 CRLR 882/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 25 RB 5474
RJ 25 EV 2126
21 216 CRLR 883/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 25 RB 3156
RJ 25 EV 1148
22 217 CRLR 888/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 25 RB 5671
RJ 25 EV 0381
23 219 CRLR 898/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 25 RB 5605
24 220 CRLR 908/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 25 RB 4094
RJ 25 EV 1692
25 223 CRLR 1019/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 25 RB 7187
26 224 CRLR 1057/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 29 RB 3543
27 225 CRLR 1061/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 17 RB 1466
28 226 CRLR 1078/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 14 RD 2958
29 227 CRLR 1088/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 26 RB 9112
30 228 CRLR 1092/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 26 RB 8601
31 229 CRLR 1096/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 47 RA 2078
32 235 CRLMP 2324/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 33 RA 2244
33 236 CRLMP 2330/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 34 RB 1058
RJ 34 EV 0073
34 237 CRLMP 3610/2020 Tractor with trolley Engine No.S3251K89033
Chasis
No.MEA8D061FL1270859
35 239 CRLMP 3910/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 25 RB 9403
RJ 25 EV 2047
36 240 CRLMP 5113/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 26 RB 5489
37 241 CRLMP 5168/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 14 RD 4988
RJ 29 EV 0821
(Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:29 PM)
(18 of 18) [CRLMP-7887/2019]
38 242 CRLMP 5180/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 25 RB 6215
39 243 CRLMP 5181/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 25 RB 8017
40 244 CRLMP 5182/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 25 RB 1750
41 245 CRLMP 5239/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 34 RB 9716
42 246 CRLMP 5247/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 25 RB 0971
43 247 CRLMP 5250/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 26 RB 2095
44 248 CRLMP 5251/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 21 RG 2254
Tractor with trolley RJ 26 RB 5820
45 251 CRLMP 5261/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 25 RB 7379
46 252 CRLMP 5262/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 02 RD 6047
Tractor with trolley RJ 02 RD 4038
47 256 CRLMP 5278/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 29 RB 4467
RJ 29 EV 0825
48 257 CRLMP 5280/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 17 RA 8214
49 258 CRLMP 5281/2020 Trolley Unregistered
50 260 CRLMP 5283/2020 Tractor with trolley RJ 25 RB 9901
(Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:32:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)