JCB Seized After Driver Allegedly Carried Sand Without Permit To Be Released On Bond Worth 1.5 Times Its Value: Gujarat HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of the seized JCB despite the confiscation provisions under the Mines and Minerals Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the concerned Trial Court or authority was directed to release the JCB upon the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety and personal bond for 1.5 times the vehicle’s value, undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and producing it whenever directed; the order further stated that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

The order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer; the Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

The petitioner sought release of his JCB, registration No. GJ-04-CF-1208, seized by the Royalty Inspector after its driver was allegedly found transporting ordinary sand without a pass or permit, contrary to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.

p. 1

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat. The State objected on the basis of the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the Court could order release under Article 226 where appropriate.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of the seized JCB despite the confiscation provisions under the Mines and Minerals Act.

pp. 1–2

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released subject to conditions securing its preservation and production during the proceedings.

pp. 2–4

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer writ and supervisory jurisdiction, and the petitioner also invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

p. 1

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, for the principle that seized vehicles should not be left unattended for long periods and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security to ensure their return when required.

pp. 2–3

It also referred to coordinate-bench decisions releasing seized vehicles under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 2

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

04Reasoning

The Court considered the risk that the seized JCB could deteriorate if retained, applying Sunderbhai’s direction that seized vehicles need not remain unattended where suitable safeguards can secure their production.

pp. 2–3

Although the State relied on confiscation provisions, it did not dispute the Court’s constitutional power to order release in an appropriate case.

p. 2

The Court therefore ordered release on conditions designed to secure the vehicle’s value, prevent its transfer, ensure its availability to the Trial Court, and document its condition before release.

pp. 3–4

05Holding

p. 3

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

p. 4

The order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer; the Rule was made absolute.

p. 4

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF