Seized Property May Be Returned If Vulnerable To Decay: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has recently granted the petition seeking the quashment of order seizing the vehicles of the Petitioner under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017 and under Sections 4(1)A, 21(1), 21(4) and 21(4A) of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. An FIR was also registered against the Petitioner...
The Gujarat High Court has recently granted the petition seeking the quashment of order seizing the vehicles of the Petitioner under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017 and under Sections 4(1)A, 21(1), 21(4) and 21(4A) of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. An FIR was also registered against the Petitioner for offences under Sections 379, 114 and 120B of IPC.
It was contested that the vehicles were the only means of livelihood for the Petitioner and if they were kept in further seizure, their condition will deteriorate since the trial will take time to conclude. Per contra, the Appellants submitted that the Petitioner was involved in illegal mining and therefore, the petition ought to have been rejected.
Justice AS Supehia referred to Section 451 of CrPC to state, "Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that when any property is produced before any criminal Court during trial, the Court may make order for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the trial." Reliance was placed on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2003(1) G.L.H. 307 wherein the Supreme Court had held:
"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 inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay."
Justice Supehia further ventured to conclude that where the property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie defence made out, the Magistrate may, to further the ends of justice, order the payment of the value of the property, as well.
Further reliance was placed on Jayant Etc. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal Nos.824-825 of 2020 wherein it was opined that where the violator is permitted to compound the offences on payment of penalty as per Section 23A(1) of the Mines Act, there should be no further proceedings against the offender in respect of the offences punishable under the Act. Therefore, per the Bench, the lower courts had erred in not releasing the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and directed the Petitioner to furnish solvent surety of INR 5,00,000 within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the order. It was further directed that the Petitioner should not sell, transfer or alienate the vehicles during the pendency of the trial.
Case Title: Kanjariya Khalid Ahmed vs State Of Gujarat
Case No.: R/SCR.A/3712/2021
Click Here To Read/Download Order