MANU DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ram Kishor Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The petitioner claims himself to be the registered owner of a tractor- trolley bearing no.UP-91F-168. It was seized by the Mining Officer on 5.8.2015. The allegation was that the vehicle was found carrying Morram illegally and it amounts to an offence under Sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner moved an application for release of the tractor-trolley before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rath Hamirpur. The application was considered by the Judicial Magistrate and by an order dated 7.8.2015, tractor- trolley in question was released in favour of the petitioner in relation to the offence under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The order was subject to the rider that the vehicle was not required in connection with any other offence. In view of the said condition, the tractor-trolley which was also involved in commission of offences under the other provisions of law was not released. The petitioner therefore, moved separate application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur on 7.8.2015 for release of tractor-trolley in his favour in relation to the offence allegedly committed under Sections 4/21 of the Act. The application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by an order dated 7.8.2015 and called for final report from the police station Rath as well as Mines Officer, Hamirpur. Thereafter the police station Rath submitted a report stated therein that the tractor and trolley has been seized in case crime no.1318 of 2015 under Section 207 of M.V.Act and there was Morram in the trolley, therefore, report has been sent to the Mines Officer, Hamirpur. Thereafter the Mines Officer, Hamirpur sent a report dated 10.8.2015 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur informing that the tractor and trolley has been seized under the Mines and Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 as well as the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development), Act, 1957. The Mines Officer also mentioned in the report that petitioner is liable to deposit the amount of royalty Rs.1350 and penalty of Rs.25000/-. Thereafter the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 11.8.2015 rejecting the application of the petitioner holding that the power to release the vehicle can only to be exercised after a complaint is registered before a criminal court and since by that time, no such complaint was lodged before him and therefore, he lacked the jurisdiction in the matter.The petitioner thereafter, moved another application dated 12.8.2015 which was also rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by an order dated 12.8.2015 on the ground that the earlier application of the petitioner has been rejected, therefore order cannot be recalled.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P.2 wherein, this Court after examining the provisions of the Act, has held that it is only the court which can direct disposal of the seized goods including the mining plant and machinery. Relevant portion of the said judgment is as under :-