IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.19933 of 2011 Hari Shankar Singh Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 2/ 5thSeptember 2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP. 2. Petitioner, who happens to be owner of truck bearing registration no. BR-1GA-1563 filed instant petition assailing the order dated 9.2.2011 passed by the learned CJM, Munger, in connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 1/2011 as well as order dated 24.03.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Munger in Cr. Revision Nos. 42, 46 and 47 of 2011 (consolidated) whereby and where-under the prayer of petitioner to release the aforesaid vehicle was refused along with others (who are not petitioners). 3. The Mining Inspector filed a written report disclosing therein that there was illegal mining conducted by one Haldhar Yadav, the person who was earlier lessee and whose period of lease stood expired and while transporting the boulders, tractors, dumpers, trucks, drilling machine, etc have also been seized 2 including that of the petitioner. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he happens to be owner of the truck bearing registration no. BR-1GA-1563 having all the relevant documents in his favour. Also submitted that no confiscation proceeding has been initiated till the day by prosecution and therefore in the present state of affairs, Criminal court was quite competent to pass order in accordance with Chapter-XXXIV of the Cr.P.C. 5. Also submitted that grounds whatever enumerated under the order passed by the learned CJM as well as revisional order passed by the learned Sessions Judge happens to be against the settled norms as well as guidelines propagated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. The learned APP opposed the prayer and submitted that at least two weeks time be granted to file counter affidavit. However, he fairly concedes that if the Court finds that the purpose of petitioner is fulfilled by passing a conditional order, that can be passed. 3 7. There is no dispute that the truck happens to be a public career. It is also not in dispute that it was seized while boulder was loaded over it in unauthorized way. From Annexure-2 of the petition it is evident that no confiscation proceeding has been initiated rather the Mining Officer had requested the court to pass order as the court deems fit and proper. 8. Withholding the truck will serve no purpose rather it will cause financial loss to the petitioner as well as to the State and that happens to be reason behind that in a decision reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 the Hon’ble Apex Court emphatically directed to released the vehicles and for that certain criteria has been fixed where-under the petitioner’s case also falls. 9. Accordingly, the successive order passed by the learned CJM as well as learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The learned lower court is directed to release the truck bearing registration no. BR-1GA- 1563 in favour of petitioner after verifying the genuineness of the document having in favour of the petitioner, Hari Shankar Singh, along with up-to-date tax token, insurance policy having in favour of the 4 petitioner, as well as taking definite information from the authority concerned whether any confiscation proceeding has been initiated so far the truck in question is concerned, at the end of Mining Department in accordance with Bihar Minerals (Prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage) Rules, 2003. 10. If the confiscation proceeding is found to be initiated one, the impugned order will cease its force, otherwise the truck will be released in favour of petitioner on a bank guarantee of Rs.5 lacs with a condition that the petitioner will not transfer its ownership till continuation of proceeding, will not change its physical feature and will produce before the court whenever and wherever so directed. 11. Let this order be faxed to the court concerned at the cost of the petitioner. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)