Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kurshid S/O Roojdar B/C Mev vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 October, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 679/2020
Kurshid S/o Roojdar, R/o House No.117, Manesar Gurgaon
District Gurgaon, Haryana, At Present R/o Tapakniya Ki Dhani,
Nimbahedi, Thana Tapukada, District Alwar, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3118/2019
1. Ali S/o Gunga, R/o Gijal Ki Dhani, Tan Nimbahedi, Ps Tapukda, District Alwar.
2. Juber S/o Ali Khan, R/o Gijal Ki Dhani, Tan Nimbahedi, Ps Tapukda, District Alwar.
3. Sahid S/o Ali Khan, R/o Gijal Ki Dhani, Tan Nimbahedi, Ps Tapukda, District Alwar.
----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent AND Other connected cases as per Schedule-"A" appended to this order For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Khan, Mr. R. R. Goyal, Mr. D.D. Khandelwal, Mr. Bharat Yadav, Mr. Dushyant Jain, Mr. Sandeep Jain, Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Mr. Arvind Sharma, Mr. Sumit Khandelwal, Ms. Sarika Choudhary, Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Mr. Rohit Khandelwal, Mr. Manu Agarwal, Mr. Mohd. Shakir Khan, Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Mr. Avadesh Kumar (Downloaded on 28/10/2020 at 08:45:00 PM) (2 of 9) [CRLMP-679/2020] Purohit, Mr. Vishnu Shankar Badaya, Mr. Ashok Yadav, Mr. Chaman Singh, Mr. Aditya Mishra, Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Palia, Mr. Girish Khandelwal, Mr. Rohit Khandelwal, Ms. Aradhana Swami, Mr. Brahm Singh Gurjar, Mr. Deepak Khandelwal, Mr. Vikas Kabra, Mr. Atul Kumar Jain, Mr. Amit Dadhich, Mr. Tarun Jain, Mr. Narendra Singh Shekhawat, Mr. Shivraj Chauhan and Mr. Satish Kumar Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP with Mr. Anuj Goyal, Mining Engineer (Writ), Jaipur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 23/10/2020 All these petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying for release of Dumper/Truck/Trailer, which were seized, while doing illegal mining. The details of the concerned vehicle are being shown in the annexed Schedule-"A" to this order as per their respective petitions.
The release of vehicle has been examined at length by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors.
Versus State of Gujarat: (2002) 10 SCC 283, which has been followed by this Court in Asharam Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2723/2019 along with connected cases decided on 3.2.2020 and Nathulal Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2755/2020 decided on 01.10.2020. In the case of Asharam (supra), the Court has held as under:
"11. In the aforesaid background, this Court finds that while it is true that a vehicle should not be allowed to (Downloaded on 28/10/2020 at 08:45:00 PM) (3 of 9) [CRLMP-679/2020] 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 Ram's, supra. These judgments, in view of the (Downloaded on 28/10/2020 at 08:45:00 PM) (4 of 9) [CRLMP-679/2020] 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 (Downloaded on 28/10/2020 at 08:45:00 PM) (5 of 9) [CRLMP-679/2020] 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:
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."
In view of the above, all these petitions are allowed, however, taking into consideration that the vehicle is a dumper (Downloaded on 28/10/2020 at 08:45:00 PM) (6 of 9) [CRLMP-679/2020] and not tractor as in Asharam (supra), the security amount is liable to be enhanced and following directions are passed:
a) The concerned Police Station shall release the Dumper/Truck/Trailer to the person(s), who is the registered owner of the vehicle alone.
b) The release of the Dumper/Truck/Trailer shall be subject to the condition that the concerned owner shall get Dumper/Truck/Trailer 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.5,00,000/- 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.
All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
FATEH RAJ BOHRA
(Downloaded on 28/10/2020 at 08:45:01 PM)
(7 of 9) [CRLMP-679/2020]
SCHEDULE "A"
S. Item Case No. Title of the case Name of Registration No.
NO. Number in Vehicle
the cause
list dt.
23.10.2020
1 167 SBCRLMP NO.679/2020 Khurshid Vs. State of Raj. Dumper HR-55-R-2770
CONNECTED WITH
168 S.B.CRLMP NO.3118/2019 Ali Vs. State of Raj.
Dumper HR-55-A-2770
2 171 SBCRLMP No.2042/2020 Rajesh Kumar Meena Vs. Trailer RJ-34-GB-0788
State of Raj.
3 185 SBCRLMP NO.2336/2020 Kamlesh Vs. State of Raj. Dumper RJ-32-GB-6227
4 197 SBCRLMP. NO.2564/2020 Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Truck RJ-05-GA-8418
Raj.
5 212 SBCRLMP NO.2678/2020 Firm Shrikrishna Building Dumper RJ-26-GA-4677
Material Suppliers Vs.
State of Raj.
6 222 SBCRLMP NO.2763/2020 Rameshwar Vs. State of Dumper RJ-26-GA-3550
Raj.
7 224 SBCRLMP NO.2789/2020 Babulal Vs. State of Raj. Dumper RJ-14-GK-2834
8 225 SBCRLMP NO.2790/2020 Rajesh Vs. State of Raj. Dumper RJ-14-GL-1141
9 240 SBCRLMP NO.2921/2020 Amarchand Meena Vs. Truck RJ-08-GB-0061
State of Raj.
10 277 SBCRLMP NO.3090/2020 Rakesh Vs. State of Raj. Dumper RJ-14-GK-9000
11 280 SBCRLMP NO.3097/2020 Dhanraj Vs. State of Raj. Truck RJ-26-GA-5427
CONNECTED WITH
SBCRLMP NO.3096/2020 Kedar Vs. State of Raj. Truck RJ-26-GA-5120
12 287 SBCRLMP NO.3123/2020 Ishak Vs. State of Raj. Truck RJ-05-GA-5975
13 295 SBCRLMP NO.3214/2020 Ghansahay Vs. State of Truck RJ-52-GA-2127
Raj.
14 341 SBCRLMP NO.3556/2020 Sampat Singh Vs. State of Truck RJ-05-GB-4719
Raj.
15 342 SBCRLMP NO.3560/2020 Garima Vs. State of Raj. Truck RJ-08-GA-1902
16 350 SBCRLMP NO.3781/2020 Ramesh Vs. State of Raj. Truck RJ-14-GJ-4506
17 357 SBCRLMP NO.3819/2020 Ramvilash Vs. State of Truck RJ-08-GA-1317
Raj.
18 366 SBCRLMP NO.3852/2020 Bhagchand Vs. State of Dumper RJ-17-GA-5776
Raj.
19 368 SBCRLMP NO.3904/2020 Ramlal Jat Vs. State of Trailer RJ-47-GA-1765
CONNECTED WITH Raj.
SBCRLMP NO.3900/2020 Trailer RJ-47-GA-2927
369 Hardayal Chaudhary Vs.
SBCRLMP NO.3902/2020 State of Raj. Trailer RJ-47-GA-2126
Hardayal Chaudhary Vs.
370 SBCRLMP NO.3903/2020 State of Raj. Trailer RJ-47-GA-1621
Ranjeet Chaudhary Vs.
State of Raj.
371
20 372 SBCRLMP NO.3908/2020 Mohammad Farooq Vs. Truck HR-38-R-9986
State of Raj.
21 387 SBCRLMP NO.3974/2020 Gajju Singh Udawat Vs. Truck RJ-32-GB-2593
State of Raj.
22 398 SBCRLMP NO.4020/2020 Sheesharam Vs. State of Truck RJ-11-GA-8237
Raj.
23 405 SBCRLMP NO.4040/2020 Dinesh Vs. State of Raj. Truck RJ-14-GK-4525
24 406 SBCRLMP NO.4043/2020 Suresh Vs. State of Raj. Dumper RJ-14-GL-1872
25 418 SBCRLMP NO.4140/2020 Antaram Vs. State of Raj. Dumper RJ-14-GE-1152
(Downloaded on 28/10/2020 at 08:45:01 PM)
(8 of 9) [CRLMP-679/2020]
26 424 SBCRLMP NO.4184/2020 Sajid Vs. State of Raj. Dumper HR-38-BQ-
8862
27 436 SBCRLMP NO.4237/2020 Ranajeet Vs. State of Raj. Truck MP-06-HC-
0597
28 444 SBCRLMP NO.4316/2020 Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Trailer RJ-29-GA-7641
Raj.
29 450 SBCRLMP NO.4362/2020 Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Truck RJ-14-GH-6458
Raj.
30 456 SBCRLMP NO.4396/2020 Mukesh Vs. State of Raj. Trailer RJ-14-GJ-7798
31 458 SBCRLMP NO.4400/2020 Chouthmal Vs. State of Trailer RJ-05-GB-4335
Raj.
32 465 SBCRLMP NO.4442/2020 Mannalal Vs. State of Raj. Truck RJ-32-GA-5057
33 476 SBCRLMP NO.4621/2020 Shikhar Jat Vs. State of Dumper RJ-14-GA-0788
Raj.
34 486 SBCRLMP NO.4634/2020 Ramesh Vs. State of Raj. Truck RJ-19-JB-4467
35 487 SBCRLMP NO.4635/2020 Shivraj Vs. State of Raj. Truck RJ-25-GA-1776
36 496 SBCRLMP NO.4663/2020 Sanwarmal Vs. State of Truck RJ-14-GB-4688
Raj.
37 497 SBCRLMP NO.4673/2020 Pep Singh Vs. State of Trailer RJ-05-GB-9916
Raj.
38 504 SBCRLMP NO.4686/2020 Chhuttan Lal & Ors. Vs. Truck RJ-25-GA-1578
State of Raj. Truck RJ-47-GA-1054
Truck RJ-26-GB-1318
Truck RJ-32-GB-1406
39 513 SBCRLMP NO.4738/2020 Jeetram Vs. State of Raj. Trailer RJ-47-GA-0223
40 517 SBCRLMP NO.4781/2020 Salim Vs. State of Raj. Trailer RJ-08-GA-3138
41 519 SBCRLMP NO.4786/2020 Ramnarayan Vs. State of Truck RJ-14-GE-7206
Raj.
42 529 SBCRLMP NO.4816/2020 Tarun Vs. State of Raj. Dumper RJ-26-GA-5222
43 532 SBCRLMP NO.4827/2020 Ibrahim Vs. State of Raj. Truck RJ-05-GB-1846
44 534 SBCRLMP NO.4836/2020 Badrilal Vs. State of Raj. Dumper RJ-17-GA-5384
45 539 SBCRLMP NO.4898/2020 Harkesh Meena Vs. State Truck RJ-14-GG-6911
of Raj.
46 542 SBCRLMP NO.4918/2020 Mahendra Vs. State of Raj. Dumper RJ-47-GA-0035
47 544 SBCRLMP NO.4928/2020 Alokpal Singh Vs. State of Trailer RJ-29-GB-0087
Raj.
48 547 SBCRLMP NO.4973/2020 Samsuddeen Vs. State of Dumper HR-55-S-0246
Raj.
49 553 SBCRLMP NO.4993/2020 Siyaram Vs. State of Raj. Truck RJ-44-RA-0215
CONNECTED WITH
SBCRLMP NO.4994/2020 Heera Lal Vs. State of Raj. Truck RJ-18-RB-5549
554
50 557 SBCRLMP NO.5012/2020 Rajaram Vs. State of Raj. Trailer RJ-08-GA-4492
51 577 SBCRLMP NO.5044/2020 Chhotu Lal Vs. State of Dumper RJ-52-GA-3489
Raj.
52 578 SBCRLMP NO.5045/2020 Om Prakash Vs. State of Dumper RJ-14-GF-6636
Raj.
53 590 SBCRLMP NO.5059/2020 Mukesh Raiwari Vs. State Truck RJ-14-GB-5897
of Raj.
54 C-7 SBCRLMP NO.2541/2020 Shiv Charan Vs. State of Dumper RJ-26-GA-3531
Raj.
55 C-9 SBCRLMP NO.2627/2020 Rasheed @ Rashid Khan Truck RJ-02-G-9432
Vs. State of Raj. Truck RJ-14-2G-7276
56 C-12 SBCRLMP NO.2680/2020 Devi Shankar Vs. State of Dumper RJ-14-GJ-2724
Raj.
57 C-13 SBCRLMP NO.2682/2020 Khushi Ram Vs. State of Truck RJ-52-GA-2352
Raj. (Trailer)
(Downloaded on 28/10/2020 at 08:45:01 PM)
(9 of 9) [CRLMP-679/2020]
58 C-16 SBCRLMP NO.2856/2020 Jeetpal Vs. State of Raj. Dumper RJ-26-GA-1512
59 C-28 SBCRLMP NO.3053/2020 Ramesh Chand Vs. State Truck RJ-02-GA-5698
CONNECTED WITH of Raj.
C-29 SBCRLMP NO.4833/2020 Truck RJ-02-GA-5698
Narendra Vs. State of Raj.
60 C-41 SBCRLMP NO.4213/2020 Najmuddin Vs. State of Truck RJ-08-GA-1335
Raj.
61 C-43 SBCRLMP NO.4261/2020 Ram Singh Vs. State of Truck RJ-11-GA-0966
Raj.
62 C-47 SBCRLMP NO.4454/2020 Mool Chand Vs. State of Truck RJ-08-GA-1581
Raj.
63 C-48 SBCRLMP NO.4497/2020 Ramphool Vs. State of Truck RJ-26-GA-4770
CONNECTED WITH Raj.
C-49 SBCRLMP NO.4129/2020 Truck RJ-26-GA-1767
Deshraj Vs. State of Raj.
64 C-53 SBCRLMP NO.5109/2020 Kishanlal Vs. State of Raj. Trailer RJ-47-GA-1599
65 C-54 SBCRLMP NO.5110/2020 Mohammed Irshad Vs. Truck RJ-25-GA-1822
State of Raj.
(Downloaded on 28/10/2020 at 08:45:01 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)