Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 457 crpc in Kalu vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 September, 2021Matching Fragments
Order Reserved on 14/09/2021 Pronounced on 18/09/2021
1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.
2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal misc. petition of the Petitioner may kindly be allowed and the order dated 23.04.2021 in Criminal misc. application u/s 457 Cr.P.C. by which learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, imposed the conditions and ordered to deposit the compounding fee within 15 days and rejected the prayer of the applicant/petitioner under section 457 of Cr.P.C. for releasing the seized vehicle, and against the order dated 13.08.2021 passed by (2 of 30) [CRLMP-4975/2021] the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shahpura camp Jahajpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.) in criminal revision no.28/2021 Kalu versus State, by which revision petition of the petitioner was rejected and affirmed the order passed by the A.C.J.M. Jahajpur, may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent that order to the petitioner, for depositing the amount as pre condition and directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to release the vehicle trailor no. RJ 06 GB 8112, chassis number MBIUPDHDXGRTR6190, of the petitioner on supurdginama without insisting for payment of compounding/penalty amount."
2. All these petitions have been preferred against the orders passed by the learned courts below, whereby the applications under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners seeking release of vehicles of different categories were rejected or allowed on condition of paying compounding fee, and therefore, looking to commonality of the issue involved herein, the present petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
4. The exercise of power under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. is under judicial scrutiny in these petitions, and the extraordinary strictness in the mining and forest laws to deal with the subject, are the core issues of the present adjudication.
5. Mr. Radheshyam Mankad, Mr. Rakesh Matoria, Mr. H.S. Rajpurohit, Mr. Trilok Joshi, Mr. Rakesh Arora, Mr. Abhishek Mehta, Mr. Bhawani Singh Mertia, Mr. Rohitash Singh Rathore, Mr. Shrey Gaharan (on VC), Mr. Mohan Ram Choudhary, Ms. Manjula Choudhary, Mr. Akash Goyal, Mr. Ramdeen Choudhary, Mr. D.S. Udawat, Mr. S.P. Sharma, Mr. Devki Nandan Vyas (on VC) and Mr. Jayant Joshi, Mr. Ripudaman Singh, learned counsels for the petitioners relied upon the judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Julfi Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.397/2020) alongwith other connected petitions, decided on 23.10.2020; Irfan Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.742/2021) alongwith other connected petitions, decided on 16.02.2021.
21. 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 Ramswaroops case, which was later followed in Mala Rams, 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 Ramswaroops case on 28.08.2015, in his earlier judgment dated 26.10.2012 in Muknaram v. 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 realisation 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.