MUKNARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Revision Petition No.174/2012 whereby the learned Revisional Court by dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner has upheld and affirmed the order dated 25.8.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Misc. Case No.109/2012 whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for releasing the seized vehicle in his 'Supurdginama'.

(3.) The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that Tehsildar, Sawai Madhopur lodged a written report before Police Station, Surwal (District Sawai Madhopur) to the effect that on 17.8.2012, a JCB (excavator) bearing Chesis No.1263832-J-207 was found illegally digging 'Bajri' in Khasra No.301 'Siway Chak Banjar'. It was further averred in the written report that the driver of the aforesaid JCB fled away from the place of incident and the machine has been seized by him. On the basis of aforesaid written report, an FIR No.3/2012 for the offences under Sections 447 & 379 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. It is to be noted that during investigation offence under Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was also added. It is not in dispute that SDM, Sawai Madhpur imposed Rs.2 lacs as compound fees on the aforesaid JCB machine and the same has not been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for interim release of the aforesaid machine on his 'Supurdginama' and the same was opposed by the respondent. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur after hearing both the parties dismissed the application vide order dated 25.8.2012 mainly on the ground that unless the aforesaid compound fees imposed upon the petitioner is paid or deposited, the seized machine cannot be released by the Court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Revisional Court and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 7.9.2012. The Revisional Court also held that until the order of imposing compound fees is in existence and the amount is not paid by the petitioner, the seized JCB cannot be released on his 'Supurdginama'. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this petition.