PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 against the order dated 13.07.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in criminal revision No. 29/2017, that arising out of order dated 10.07.2017, passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Hanumanagarh, in FIR No. 182/2017 of P.S. Sadar Hanumangarh, whereby learned session court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 10.07.2017, by which learned trial court dismissed the application, filed by petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C., 1973 for handing over the truck Trailor bearing No.RJ-07/ GD-3777.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1391/2012 Habiburhaman v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (along with three connected matters) decided on 12.06.2012 .
(3.) The coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.06.2012 has passed the following order in Habiburhaman (supra):- The instant misc. petitions have been preferred against the order dated 02.05.2012 passed by learned Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilara rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners under section 457 Cr.P.c., 1973 as affirmed in revision by learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur by order dated 23.05.2012 passed in revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in this case various vehicles and excavation equipments belonging to the petitioners were seized by the officers of the Mining Department in a joint survey conducted on 24.05.2012. Learned counsel submits that the mining activities conducted by the petitioners are presently at standstill and the petitioners are taking steps for procuring the environmental clearance certificates and they undertake that no mining activity shall take place till appropriate environmental clearance certificates are procured by them. He however, urges that the petitioners cannot be denied from using their vehicles/equipments for the lawful purposes. He therefore, submits that the orders passed by the courts below whereby the applications and the revisions filed by the petitioners under Section 457 Cr.P.C., 1973 were rejected, are without jurisdiction and amount to abuse of process of court. He further submits that the Mining Department has given notice to the petitioners for deposition of composition charges and the petitioners are ready to submit bank guarantees against the said composition charges. He submits that the petitioners claim is that they have not committed any offence whatsoever and thus, they are not liable to make the payment of composition charges. He submits that the petitioners have a right to raise a defence that they are not liable for the offences as alleged by the Department. He further urged that till date no complaint has been filed against the petitioners in any competent court, therefore, they cannot be forced to make the payment of composition charges. He, thus, prays that the vehicles/machinery in question be directed to be released to the petitioners on interim Supurdginama, subject to them furnishing commensurate bank guarantees commensurate in the trial court. Mr. R.K. Soni, learned counsel for the mining Department has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners. He submits that the Mining Department has already served notices upon the petitioners to make the payment of the composition charges, as such vehicles/machinery in question should not be given to the petitioners on interim Supurdginama. However, he does not dispute the fact that till date no complaint for the offences alleged has been filed against the petitioners. Undisputed fact as revealed from the record is that till date no complaint has been filed against the petitioners for violation of the mining lease. The petitioners cannot be denied their right to use vehicles/machinery for lawful purposes. The claim of the Mining Department towards the composition charges can be secured by taking bank guarantee for the amount from the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid facts, these misc. petitions are allowed and the vehicles/machinery in question are directed to be released on interim Supurdginama to the petitioners upon the petitioners furnishing bank guarantee in terms of the composition notices given by the Department and the circular dated 13.01.2011 which is quoted here-in-below. "Keeping in view that different officers are charging different compounding fee for similar cases, it is decided that following compounding fee may be charged in addition to the cost of the mineral from the of fencers for releasing the seized equipment/vehicle/tools etc. JUDGEMENT_171_LAWS(RAJ)7_2017_1.html Upon the petitioners furnishing the bank guarantees and Supurdginama along with bail bonds, amount whereof shall be decided by the trial court, the interim custody of the vehicles/machinery in question shall be released to the petitioners. The petitioners shall also submit an undertaking that they shall not use the vehicles/machinery in question for mining activities without following due process of law and without obtaining the requisite clearance certificates.";