VIKAS UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material available on record.

(2.) By means of this application, the applicant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 1/8/2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot in Case No.510 of 2022, Police Station Bharatkoop, District Chitrakoot.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the registered owner of Truk No.UP96 T3091 having valid E-Transit Pass. The said vehicle is not confiscated. The said vehicle was e-challaned by the mining officer on account of non payment of demand made by the opposite party no.3, thereafter, a notice was issued to the applicant demanding a sum of Rs.29,800.00 for the aforesaid vehicle. He has further submitted that thereafter the applicant has filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate with the prayer to call the challani report of the applicant's vehicle but the court below vide order dtd. 1/8/2022 without considering the real facts, rejected the applicant's application on the ground that the matter may be decided by the district magistrate. He has further submitted that the district magistrate has no power to release the vehicle in question. He has further submitted that in a similar matter, a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 14/10/2022 while setting aside the impugned order directed the court below to consider and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. In support of his submission, he has relied upon paragraph 18 of the the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.20111 of 2015 wherein it has been held that the District Magistrate has no power whatsoever to deal with the seized minerals, tool, vehicle, plant and machinery etc. used in illegal activities as per the Act of 1957. The District Magistrate is not competent to release seized minerals, plant, machinery, vehicles etc. used offence under Sec. 21 of the Act 1957.