A Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) complaint filed before a Magistrate is non-est, requiring release of the seized vehicle.

The petitioner claimed ownership of a Tata Motors dumper/truck bearing Registration No. GJ-16-AU-9918, which was seized by the respondent authorities on 19 June 2026 under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, as amended in 2019.

The petitioner contended that the authorities had not taken the steps required under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii), including filing a written complaint before the Court of Sessions within the prescribed period, and sought release of the vehicle.

The State submitted that a complaint had subsequently been filed on 3 August 2026 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wagra, in Criminal Case No. 1447 of 2026.

The petitioner argued that the complaint was legally non-est because Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) required the complaint to be filed before the Court of Sessions.

The Court applied Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, as amended in 2019.

Rule 12(2)(a) permits release of seized property upon furnishing a bank guarantee corresponding to the applicable penalty or the written-down value of the property.

Under Rule 12(2)(b)(i), the authorised officer may investigate and compound a compoundable offence, whereas under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii), where compounding is impermissible or the offence is non-compoundable, the officer must, upon expiry of 45 days from seizure or completion of investigation, whichever is earlier, approach the Court of Sessions by a written complaint.

Rule 12(3) assigns the Court the power to impose penalty and order confiscation, and Rule 12(7) regulates custody of the seized property.

The Court relied on the principles laid down in Special Civil Application No. 9213 of 2020, decided on 6 November 2020, that continued retention of a seized vehicle without following Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) is unauthorised and that, in such circumstances, release cannot be conditioned upon furnishing a bank guarantee.

The petitioner had also relied upon Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No. 9203 of 2020.

The Court held that the statutory scheme distinguishes between release against a bank guarantee, investigation and compounding by the authorised officer, and penalty or confiscation by the Court.

Since the vehicle was seized on 19 June 2026, the respondent authority was required, where compounding was unavailable or not pursued, to approach the Court of Sessions under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) after the prescribed period.

Filing the complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wagra, was contrary to the express requirement that the complaint be made before the Court of Sessions.

The complaint was therefore treated as non-est in the eye of law and could not justify continued retention of the vehicle.

The Court consequently directed release of the vehicle without examining the merits of the alleged mining offence, while preserving the respondents’ liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

The Court held that a complaint under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) must be filed before the Court of Sessions, and that the complaint filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wagra, was non-est for want of jurisdiction.

The respondents were directed to release Tata Motors dumper/truck bearing Registration No. GJ-16-AU-9918 to the petitioner.

The release was ordered without adjudicating the merits, and the authorities were granted liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

Rule was made absolute to that extent, with no order as to costs.