CHINUBHAI SOMABHAI BHARWAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah for the applicant submits that by a communication addressed to the learned Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad dtd. 6/2/2023 from the office of the Geology and Mining Department, it was informed that a total amount of Rs.17,67,419.00 was paid under the Amnesty Scheme and as per the Government Resolution of the Industries and Mines Department, No. MMR/1103/3450/Chh dtd. 9/6/2022. She submits that while dealing with the application under Sec. 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ( CrPC ) of the applicant, it has been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order that the applicant has paid a sum of Rs.13,11,645.00 by Challan No. 613/2 and as per the above communication of the Geology and Mining Department, Rs.4,55,774.00 was towards Environment Charges, which was paid under Challan No. 613. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that though the fact was noted and prayer was made for proceeding as per Rule 22 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (the Rules), the learned Additional Sessions Judge has laid down a condition of furnishing personal bond and solvent surety in the sum of Rs.60.00 lakh for release of Hitachi Excavator Model No. EX-200-LC-Super- Serial No. S200-0001.

(2.) The learned advocate for the applicant, referring to the provisions of Rule 22 of the Rules regarding compounding of offence, states that the offence punishable under the Rules can be compounded by the authorised person on payment of amount either before or after the institution of prosecution and when the offence is compounded, no further proceedings are to be commenced and if at all any proceedings have been initiated, then, on the matter being compounded, such proceedings shall not be further proceeded and if at all the accused person is in custody, he shall be discharged and the property seized, if not necessary to be retained, has to be released. The learned advocate for the applicant stated that the provision itself makes it clear that on compounding the offence, the whole proceedings would be stopped and there would not be any requirement of retaining the vehicle since there would not be any further proceedings. The condition of furnishing personal bond and surety would be very onerous and further it could have no value as, such conditions would not be required to be implemented as the vehicle is required to be released.

(3.) Rule 22 of the Rules provides as under: