PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. claiming the following relief :- "It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Revision No.28/2019 and the order dated 05.1.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara in FIR No.172/2018, registered at Police Station, Pur may kindly be quashed and set aside and the JCB bearing No.RJ-06-EA-0625, Chasis No.1363223 may kindly be ordered to be released on supurdiginama in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) The vehicle in-question was seized in connection with F.I.R. No.172/2018 registered at P.S. Pur, District Bhilwara for the offence under Section 379 IPC and Section 4/21 of the MMDR Act.
(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."? ;