- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. in opposition.
(2.) By way of instant revision revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 25.02.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- Ist Banda in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.22 of 2015, State Vs. Basant Kumar and Nathu Ram, whereby learned Magistrate has rejected the application of the revisionist for the release of the Tractor bearing Registration No. U.P. 90 J 3237 along with Trolley with observation that he lacks the requisite jurisdiction to pass order for release of the vehicle under Section 4/21 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in this case aforesaid Tractor Trolley was wrongly detained on 9.2.2015 at about 3.15 p.m. by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Banda, whereupon an application for release of the same was moved by the revisionist, who claimed himself to be the owner of the aforesaid tractor bearing Registration No. U.P. 90 J 3237 along with Trolley. The Trolley after being detained was handed over to the police for safe keeping and the revisionist was challenged under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 and the U.P. Mines & minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, whereas, no such offence was ever made out and the vehicle in question was wrongly detained and given in custody of the police. Application for release along with necessary documents were moved before the learned Magistrate on 10.2.2015, whereupon, learned Magistrate was of the opinion that he lacks the requisite jurisdiction to make an order for release of the vehicle in question and rejected the application of the revisionist. Learned counsel adding that this rejection was in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the Act. It is not always necessary that a complaint should always be moved in such cases by the prosecution within stipulated period before the court concerned, and then only court concerned can exercise jurisdiction in the matter and may take up the case of release of the concerned vehicle. In cases where no such application was moved within the specified period by the detaining authority/prosecution, the court ipso facto may exercise jurisdiction taking into consideration question of release of the vehicle concerned and may pass appropriate consequential order. In support of his submission learned counsel placed reliance on the case of M. Esakki Pandi Versus Revenue Divisional Officer, Inspector of Police, Tahsildar, (LAWS (MAD)-2012-9-21/ TLMAD-2012-0-1973. In this case also under similar situation no complaint was moved within the specified period by the prosecution still the matter was considered to be within jurisdiction of the court concerned in the absence of presentation of any such complaint and competent orders were passed for release of the vehicle concerned. Learned counsel for the revisionist further added that it is not obligatory for the court concerned that jurisdiction in the matter of such release will be exercised only when complaint is filed within 7 days period. Learned counsel for the revisionist laid stress that in similarly situated case order has been passed by Allahabad High Court vide order dated 19.10.2010 in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.4253 of 2010, Smt. Sudha Kesarwani Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein also comprehensive look was given to the relevant provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 and the U.P. Mines & minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and it was categorically observed that the Magistrate was not justified in holding opinion that he lacks requisite jurisdiction to pass order for release of the vehicle either during trial or even before the commencement of the trial as the complaint has not yet been filed by the competent authority. Apart from above, in the aforesaid decision it was also observed that under Section 457 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate had the jurisdiction to release the vehicle in question in favour of its registered owner since there is no other provision either in the Act (Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957) or the Rules (U.P. Mines & minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963) for release of the vehicle; Any such order, refusing to release any detained vehicle will be void-ab-initio. Moreso it would be erroneous not to exercise jurisdiction at this juncture for release of the vehicle, merely on ground that no complaint has been moved in the case by the prosecution which alone would confer jurisdiction in the case.;