Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 457 criminal procedure code in Irfan Son Of Shri Noor Khan Deshwali vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 February, 2021Matching Fragments
1. All these petitions relate to the prayer for release of tractors and trolleys/trucks/dumper/trailer, 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 of 30) [CRLMP-742/2021]
2. All these petitions have been filed against the order passed by the concerned Magistrate whereby application under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C for releasing of tractor and trolley/Truck/Trailer/Dumper were rejected and therefore, the same are being heard together.
"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 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.
"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 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."
"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 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."