Jharkhand Minerals Rules | Mere Pendency Of Confiscation Proceeding No Bar To Dispose Of Application For Release Of Vehicle: High Court
The Jharkhand High Court while overturning the trial court's decision denying the release of a seized truck involved in an alleged illegal stone crushing operation, has observed that mere pendency of confiscation proceeding is not a bar to dispose of the application for release of the vehicle. Justice Subhash Chand observed, "From the bare perusal of Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand...
The Jharkhand High Court while overturning the trial court's decision denying the release of a seized truck involved in an alleged illegal stone crushing operation, has observed that mere pendency of confiscation proceeding is not a bar to dispose of the application for release of the vehicle.
Justice Subhash Chand observed, "From the bare perusal of Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, it is evident that though the court of Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned is empowered to conduct the confiscation proceeding in regard to the minerals, tool, equipment, vehicle or anything seized shall dispose of the same; yet this jurisdiction of the court of Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned is not exclusive jurisdiction.”
“Consequently, the Criminal Court was empowered to entertain the application for release of the vehicle, because in the Rules, the jurisdiction of the Court is not ousted. Mere pendency of confiscation proceeding is not bar to dispose of application for release of vehicle,” Justice Chand added.
Background
The above ruling came in a criminal revision petition directed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Rajmahal in a case whereby the release of the truck was rejected.
As per the prosecution, on 27.05.2023, the Circle Officer, Taljhari, conducted a surprise raid following information received about illegal stone-crushing activities near Mouza Bekchury.
It was submitted that the petitioner possessed a dealer registration form-B issued by the Mining Department with registration No. J062021777 valid until 28.06.2022, and a certificate issued by the Pollution Department was valid until 31.03.2024. However, an order was issued by the Member Secretary, JSPCPB, Ranchi, to close down the operation of the unit immediately. Despite these regulations, illegal excavation and crushing of stones continued.
During the raid, it was alleged that a truck loaded with 900 cubic ft. of stone chips was found, driven by Nitish Kumar Yadav, who failed to produce any relevant documents upon demand. The truck was seized, along with other vehicles involved in the illegal activity.
Based on the allegations, a case was registered under the relevant legislation.
The owner of the truck applied for the release of the seized vehicle, claiming to be the legitimate owner and suffering heavy losses due to its detention at the police station. He offered to produce the vehicle as per the court's directions and provide sureties as required.
However, a report from the In-charge Officer of the District Legal Cell Branch, Sahibganj, dated 31.10.2023, indicated that the confiscation proceedings for the vehicles involved in the offense, including the petitioner's vehicle, were still pending.
The trial court rejected the release application, citing the pending confiscation proceedings and relying on a judgment by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Uday Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2019 dated 26.03.2019).
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision in response to the contested order issued by the trial Court, asserting that the said order was 'bad in the eyes of law.'
It was argued that the trial Court erroneously relied on a judgment from the Apex Court, which was inapplicable to the specific circumstances of this case.
Furthermore, it was contended that according to the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, there was no prohibition on releasing the vehicle in question.
It was submitted that although Section 11 of the aforementioned rules empowers the Deputy Commissioner to initiate confiscation proceedings, it does not expressly preclude the jurisdiction of the Court to release the vehicle.
Distinguishing the case from the precedent of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Uday Singh (Supra), the Court clarified that the latter dealt with confiscation and seizure under Section 52 of the Forest Act, 1927.
The Court explained, “The learned Court below has erred in rejecting the release application of the appellant by placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Uday Singh (supra).”
“Since there is no bar in this very provision, the learned Court below was empowered to release the vehicle in view of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after having verified the title of the said vehicle and it was also incumbent upon the learned trial Court to impose the condition in regard not to transfer the said vehicle to anyone during pendency of the case and also to take undertaking from the registered owner of the vehicle to produce the same when and where the said vehicle was required during trial inter alia along with other just and proper condition,” the Court added.
Consequently, the plea was allowed, and the trial court's order was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the lower court to reconsider the petitioner's release application in light of the High Court's observations.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Savita Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, APP
Case No.: Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2023
Case Title: Sadhan Nandi vs The State Of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 34