KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Keshavrai Patan, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release the Tractor (Engine No. 3100FLU83I766906F18 and Chasis No. DZSG775056S3) alongwith Trolley to the petitioner. It is further prayed that the order dated 4.2.2019 passed by revisional court whereby the order passed by Magistrate was affirmed be also set aside.
(2.) 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.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 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." The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not willing to compound the offence, as he has decided to contest the case. The orders passed by two courts below whereby release of the vehicle on Supurdagi was refused have been assailed. ;