Seizure of vehicles — Interim custody (supurdginama) — Mining / forest / bovine / wildlife offences — Confiscation proceedings — Scope of Magistrate’s power — Principles restated.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now BNSS, pari materia) — Ss. 451, 457 — Seizure of vehicles — Interim custody (supurdginama) — Mining / forest / bovine / wildlife offences — Confiscation proceedings — Scope of Magistrate’s power — Principles restated.

Batch of S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions involving seizure of vehicles on account of offences under various statutes including Rajasthan Bovine Animals (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 etc., and challenge to revisional orders whereby release was subjected to onerous conditions or declined. Lead matter taken as SBCRLMP No.419/2025, Giriraj Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., concerning seizure of tractor with trolley in FIR No.459/2024 for offences under s.379 IPC, rr.54/60 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 and ss.4/21 MMDR Act; trial court directed deposit of total amount imposed as per panchnama (Rs.1,29,500/-) in concerned department and furnishing of supurdaginama and bail bond of Rs.5,00,000/- for release.

Petitioners contended that continued seizure serves no fruitful purpose, vehicles lying in police station backyards turn into scrap, rightful owners are deprived of legitimate use and State cannot effectively utilize the vehicles; in view of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, and Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore, (1977) 4 SCC 358, vehicles should be released on proper terms and conditions. Reliance also placed on General Insurance Council v. State of A.P., (2010) 6 SCC 768.

On the other hand, State and amicus pointed to special statutory regimes and to order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Prasad (SLP (Crl.) Nos.106–107/2021, order dated 11.07.2023) stating that vehicles involved in illegal mining, transportation etc. ought not to be released “on regular basis”, and to Jitendra Meena v. State of Rajasthan, SBCRLMP No.1161/2020 (01.12.2021), wherein liberty was given to approach mining authority after depositing compounding fee, cost of mineral and fine as per NGT directions.

Coordinate Bench and Division Bench precedents discussed, including Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 0 Supreme (Raj.) 139; Harun v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.76/2014 (23.07.2015); Shoukat Khan v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.6307/2016 (22.02.2017); and Laxman v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.60/2018 (06.04.2018). Law summarized that, until confiscation proceedings are initiated, the Magistrate concerned has power under Ss.451/457 CrPC to release seized vehicle(s) with or without condition of deposit of compensation/compounding fee, subject to furnishing of bank guarantee; once confiscation proceedings are initiated under special Acts (mining / forest / bovine), jurisdiction of criminal court to deal with possession, delivery, disposal or release ceases.

Held: Precedent of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai “shall govern the field” and vehicles seized under mining law and forest law shall be released upon charging compensation/compounding fee or without charging the same, only if confiscation proceedings have not been initiated. Once confiscation proceedings are initiated, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of property cannot be made by criminal court (following Adhikshak, Rajsthiya Chambal Abhiyaran v. Narottam). Until confiscation is initiated, Magistrate has power to release vehicles on conditions including furnishing of active bank guarantee equivalent to compensation/compounding fee to secure any future levy after completion of proceedings.

(Paras 7, 8, extracted paras 25–31 of Kishore Singh, and analysis).

Rajasthan Bovine Animals (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 — S.6-A (as inserted by Rajasthan Amendment Act, 2018) — Confiscation of means of conveyance — Exclusive jurisdiction of Competent Authority — Effect on powers of criminal court.

Under s.6-A, whenever an offence punishable under the Act is committed, any means of conveyance used is liable to confiscation; on seizure, report is to be made to the “Competent Authority” (District Collector or designated authority), which may order confiscation after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing, with option in certain cases to pay fine in lieu of confiscation and with special rule for government-owned vehicles. Sub-section (3) expressly provides that once such means of conveyance is seized, the Competent Authority shall have, and “notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall not have,” jurisdiction to make order regarding possession, delivery, disposal or release of such means of conveyance.

Held: Where confiscation proceedings under s.6-A are initiated, criminal courts have no jurisdiction to order possession, delivery, disposal or release of the vehicle; release issues are to be dealt with in the confiscation regime only.

(Para 11).

Criminal Procedure / Property seized — Vehicles lying in police stations — Need for prompt exercise of powers under Ss.451, 457 CrPC — Preservation of value — Avoidance of waste and scrap.

Court noted that seized vehicles lying at police stations since date of seizure are exposed to vagaries of weather and natural decay and, in majority of cases, petitioners are registered owners willing to furnish adequate security and abide by conditions to ensure production before Court/Investigating Officer. Following Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and other Supreme Court precedents (Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil, General Insurance Council, State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao, (2008) 14 SCC 624; Manjit Singh v. State, 2013 (5) SCC 746), powers under Ss.451 and 457 CrPC (pari materia to BNSS now) are to be exercised “promptly” to release property on interim custody (supurdgi), to preserve value and avoid unnecessary encumbrance of State.

(Paras 8–10).