GIREESH Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to have the vehicle released, which was seized in connection with the alleged offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short the 'Act'), read with the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (in short the 'Rules'). The case of the petitioner is that, his vehicle is not involved with the offence in any manner, despite which, in view of the particular facts and circumstances involving the huge liability to be satisfied to the financier of the vehicle, he is ready to have the offence compounded, for which necessary application has been preferred before the concerned Sub Inspector of Police, who has seized the vehicle and is aggrieved of the delay in considering and sanctioning the same.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that, there is a compounding provision under the statute by way of Section 23 A of Mines and Minerals ( Development and Regulation) Act, as well as Rule 60A of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, whereby the power and authority to compound the offence stand vested upon the officer, who is competent to prefer a complaint for prosecuting the offence. The stipulation is only to the effect that, the maximum amount which could be imposed on compounding, shall be the maximum penalty that could be imposed in respect of the office involved. Sub Section 2 of Section 23A of the Act and Sub Rule 2 of Rule 60 A of the Rules, says that once the offence is compounded, no further proceeding will lie against the person concerned.

(3.) Now the main dispute raised from the part of the learned Government Pleader is that, the provision to compound the offence is dealing only with reference to the 'person' and that the property ie. the vehicle, which is the subject matter involved, has to be separately dealt with, particularly in view of the probable chance to have the same confiscated by virtue of Sub Section (4A) of Section 21 of the Act.