MOHAMMED HARUN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the following relief :-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in bunch of petitions, lead case being D.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 60/2018, titled as Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, a Division Bench of this Court on 6.4.2018, has held that if a vehiclehas been seized under the Provisions of Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR Act'), for72 hours competent Officer can retain the vehicle and thereafter,he is mandatorily required to report the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. The Division Bench has held as under:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the vehicle inquestion and the same is case property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs.State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful.