The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C r/w Section 4S1 and 457 of CR.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Junior civil Judge cum-Judicial Magistrate of First class Vemulawada to release the petitioners vehicle Swaraj Tractor bearing No.TS02UA4106 and Trally No. TS02UA4107 seized in c c.No.284 of 2024 in crime No.91 of 2024 on the file of Junior civil Judge Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class Vemulawada, by setting aside the order dt.1410812024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.b23 of 2024 in C.C.No.284 of 2024 forthwith. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Ram prasad Teegala, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor'on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER o HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUYVADI SRIDEV] CRIMINAL PETITION No.l068 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed against the order dated 1,1.08.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.523 of 2024 in C.C.No.284 of 20?-4 in Crime No.91 of 2024 of Vemulawada Town Police Station, whereirL the petrtion filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. to release the property i.e. Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.TS02A 4106 and 4107 involved in r:he comrnission of offence under Section 379 of IPC and Section 2l@) of IVIines and Minerals Development and Regularization Act, 1957. llhe abole petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed on the ground that the accused used the vehicle in committing the same offence more than five times.

2. Heard Mr.Ram Prasad Teegala, leamed counsel for petitioner, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional llublic Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State and perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's vehicle has been seized and lying in the premises of concemed prtlice station since

17.01.2024, which is exposed to natural calamities and if the sarne is kept idle, there is every chance that the vehicle will get damaged as zL result of which the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. Due to the seizure of his 2 vehicle, the petitioner is subjected to mental trauma. The petitioner is an innocent and law abiding citizen. If the said vehicle is not released, the petitioner will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss. 4 Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 19.02.2015, the vehicle involved for illegal transport of sand without prior permission from the concemed authorities shall be released on payment of penalty for the vehicle and the vehicle involved more than 2 times, such vehicle/machinery along with sand shall be seized/confiscated by the concemed offlrcer in'the State. The said G.O is attached in the material papers. Therefore, he requested the Court to set aside the order and to release the vehicle till decision of the confiscation is taken by the Court or by authorities concemed as per the said G.O. Therefore, the vehicle may be returned to the petitioner, who is ready to give an undertaking and also a personal bond, and prayed the Court to allow the criminal petition. 5 On the other hand, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that if the vehicle is released, the petitioner will again involve in the same offence and further the vehicle is involved in the same offence for five times. Due to the illegalities committed by the petitioner, the entire environment is very much affected. Under Section 2l(4A) in 3 the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act',1957), the specifically authorized competent Oourt has to complete the confiscation proceedings. Therefore, he prayed lhe Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on record, the vehicle is jnvolved in mining and transporting the sand illegally. Registering the Criminal Case will make little impact. The altemative scheme of confiscation proceedings has been provid,:d to overcome the adverse consequences resulting in delay for disposal of the criminal prosecutions involving confiscation. The confiscation of the vehicle is one of the effective tool for protecting the illegal mining and preserving the environment and under Section 2l(4A) of the Act, 1957, the Court taking cognizance of the offence can confiscate. The criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings are parallel proceedings and having distinct purpose and object. The same was dealt with by the F[on,ble Apex Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer v. G.V.Sudhakar Raol. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows:- "Crin.rinal prosecution is distinct from confiscation proceedings. The two proceedings are different and parallel, each having a ,Cistinct purpose. Ihe object of confiscation proceeding ' 1:.sas; a scc sz: 4 is to enable speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of the produce and the means used for committing the offence while the obj ect of the prosecution is to punish the offender. The scheme of the Adhiniyam prescribes an ilrdependent procedure for conhscation. The intention of prescribing separate proceedings is to provide a deterrent mechanism and to stop further misuse of the vehicle."

7. In spite of the stringent provisions available, illegal mining activities increased. Section 2l(4A) of the Act, 1957 shows that the duty is cast upon the investigating officer or officers concerned who seized the vehicle to initiate the confiscation proceedings before the trial Court. If the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to seek interim custody is not maintainable. From the view law laid down in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh 2, it is clear that in the absence of initiation of the confiscation proceedings, the petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to seek interim custody of the vehicle is maintainable.

8. As seen from the record, both the Investigation Agency as well as the competent authority under the Act, 1957 have not initiated the confiscation proceedings in respect of the subject vehicle involved in the illegal transportation ofsand. Therefore, in the view of the observation of ' zozo tz scc lz3 I l, I e 5 the Apex Courl in above case, this criminal petitiron is liable to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed with thr: following conditions: I , (i) The trial Court is directed to release the vehicle Swaraj Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.TS02A4106 and. 41Ct7 to the petitioner, on execution ofl a bond to the value of the vehicle: mentioned in the insurance certificate existed on the date of occurrence and also the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the credit of Crime No.9l of 2024. On such deposit, the Court below shall re-deposit the same in any one of the nationalized bank in the interesr- bearing account. (ii) The petitioner shall file an affidavit with specific undertaking that he shatl not involved in any illegal n.rining or any other offence and vehicle also will not be used in illegal mining or. any other offence. (iii) The photographs ofthe vehicle are to be taken pr.operly and the petitioner shall produce his vehicle as and when required b), the Court below. (iv) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehi,ole till the disposal of confi scation proceedings. 6 i) Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- V HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ON OFFICER To VH

1. The Junior Civil Judge Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class Vemulawada 2. The Station House Officer, Vemulawada town Police Station, Vemulawada 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri Ram Prasad Teegala, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] ?ff- I I I ) HIGH COURT DATED: 2910112025 g l:iTAr€ 1vl o^' (: q i t1 Frli 2[25 I t oEs t' l-rcF- I t, z ORDER CRLP.No.1068 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1,1 >b