PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.
(2.) The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the following relief :- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 4.3.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sagwara and the order dated 26.2.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aspur (Dungarpur) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the vehicle Tractor No. RJ-12-RA-8918 may kindly be released on Supardginama. "
(3.) 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 vehicle has been seized under the Provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "˜MMDR Act"), for 72 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:- "In view of the above discussion, the referred questions are answered in the terms that once the Officer of the Mining Department, who seized the vehicle, has reported such seizure to his Superior Officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease to have the power to release the vehicle, and in that event, the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be empowered to release such vehicle, with or without the condition of deposit of compounding fee." ;