eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ARO

created Oct 9th, 11:10 by ShivaGK


4


Rating

501 words
26 completed
00:00
AFR
Court No. - 84
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1629 of 2021
 
Revisionist :- Vidya Nand Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Singh,Shivam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing along with Ms. Sushma Soni, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party.
 
2. Present criminal revision has been preferred seeking to set-aside the order dated 7.7.2021, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna, whereby the application filed by revisionist under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731, for release of truck seized under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 19572, has been rejected.
 
3. Pleadings of the case indicate that the vehicle owned by the revisionist, a truck carrying gitti (a minor mineral), was seized by the Mines Inspector, Kushinagar on 19.4.2021, and a report was forwarded to the District Officer for further proceedings under Rule 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 19633. The revisionist claims to have approached the District Officer and thereafter he filed an application under Section 457 of the Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna, on 3.6.2021, seeking release of the vehicle. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, after calling for a report from the Mines Inspector, passed an order on 7.7.2021, rejecting the application filed under Section 457 of the Code.
 
4. Learned counsel for revisionist has sought to assail the aforesaid order dated 7.7.2021, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, by seeking to contend that since the vehicle of the revisionist had been seized, learned Magistrate has committed an error in rejecting the application seeking release of the vehicle, despite the necessary powers in regard to the same being available under Section 457 of the Code. It is submitted that order passed by the Magistrate is based on non-application of mind and is illegal and unsustainable. Learned counsel further submits that the vehicle, which is lying with the authorities, is liable to be released. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat4, Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others5, Smt. Sudha Kesarwani vs. State of U.P. and Another6, and Smt. Manu Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others7.
 
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate-I has controverted the aforesaid contention by submitting that the vehicle/truck in question, of which the revisionist claims ownership, was intercepted while illegally transporting gitti (a minor mineral) and was seized by the Mines Inspector on 19.4.2021, in exercise of powers under Section 21(4) of the MMDR Act and a report was forwarded to the District Officer for initiation of proceedings under Rule 74 of the Concession Rules. In the meantime, the revisionist submitted an application dated 23.4.2021 to the District Magistrate, seeking compounding of the offence, order dated.  
 

saving score / loading statistics ...