The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.288 of 2025 Bijaya Kumar Agrawal …. Petitioner Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite party Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 14.07.2025 Order No. 02. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 5th April, 2025 passed in connection with CMC No.6 of 2025 at Annexure-3 by learned JMFC, Rampur, whereby, an application under Section 503 BNSS seeking interim release and custody of the seizure vehicle bearing Register No.OD-03-R-1544 in his favour was declined. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the alleged vehicle seized in connection with Lachhipur P.S. Case No.20 of 2025 dated 8th March, 2025 registered under Section 303(2) and 61(2) BNS and Rule 51 of Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (herein after referred to as ‘the Rules’). The further submission is that no compounding has taken place in respect of the seizure Page 1 of 5 vehicle and therefore, the authority concerned does not have the powers to confiscate the same in terms of Rule 51(1)(iv) of the Rules. It is contended that any such seizure of vehicle, in respect of which, a report has been filed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 51 of the Rules, the Court competent to take cognizance of the offence is having the powers to go for confiscation. It is further contended that learned court below declined to exercise the jurisdiction to release the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner on the premise that confiscation proceeding has been initiated against in respect thereof. It is again contended that learned court below does possess the power to deal with the application under Section 503 BNSS towards interim release and custody of seizure vehicle but the same has been denied on the grounds stated and therefore, the impugned order dated 5th April, 2025 at Annexure-3 is liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice followed by consequential directions issued in that regard. 4. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, submits that confiscation of a vehicle is allowed in view of Rule 51(1)(iv) 2nd proviso thereto and hence, learned court below did not err or commit any illegality denying such release of the alleged vehicle notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner claimed himself to be its rightful owner and therefore, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-3 does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 5. In course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on an order dated 21st December, 2020 in Page 2 of 5 CRLREV No.353 of 2020 and batch of cases of this Court in support of the argument that a Criminal Court is competent to direct release of the seizure articles despite Rule 51(1)(iv) of the Rules. 6. In so far as Rule 51 of the Rules is concerned, it stipulates that where the offender is liable to penalty for the offence committed by him punishable under the Rules agrees in writing to compound the said offence, the authority concerned either before or after filing of the complaint allow the same on payment of such sum as determined not exceeding the maximum amount of fine prescribed under the Rules and value of the mineral and such other properties seized. It further stipulates that on payment of such fine and value, the seized mineral and properties shall be released forthwith. As per the 2nd proviso to the above, it is prescribed that in case, the offender fails to pay the value of the mineral and any other property, all such properties shall be confiscated to the Government and disposed of through a public auction. On a proper understanding of the above provision, the Court finds that in case, the offender agrees for compounding the offence and submits to the jurisdiction of the concerned authority with such a request received in writing, such compounding is allowed and upon failing to pay the value of the mineral and any other property, it shall follow confiscation with the disposal by public auction. 7. In the case at hand, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such compounding did not take place, Page 3 of 5 inasmuch as, the petitioner was not declined and hence, referring to Rule 51(1)(iv) of the Rules, it was not justified on the part of the learned court below to hold that the confiscation proceeding stood initiated. In fact, sub-rule (3) of Rule 51 of the Rules deals with confiscation of the mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle etc. seized in respects of which a complaint is filed and the same stipulates that it shall be by an order of the Court competent to take cognizance of such offence. It does mean that upon a complaint filed, such confiscation of articles seized in connection with the complaint, the Criminal Court competent to take cognizance of the offence shall have the jurisdiction to direct the same and obviously, at the end of trial. Considering the decision of this Court in CRLREV No.353 of 2020 and batch of cases placed reliance on by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and on a reading of the relevant provision of Rule 51 of the Rules and in particular, sub-rule(s) 1 and 3, the Court is in agreement with the contention that learned court below could not have declined to entertain such an application under Section 503 BNSS to consider interim release of the seizure vehicle. Any such confiscation of a vehicle shall follow suit only if the offender agreed in writing to compound the offence and thereafter, he failed to pay the value of the property, otherwise, it shall have to be dealt with by the Court having the competent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in view of Rule 51(3) of the Rules. Having said that, the Court reaches at a conclusion that learned court below was not correct and justified denying to consider the interim custody of the seizure vehicle in favour of Page 4 of 5 the rightful claimant and therefore, the impugned order dated 5th April, 2025 at Annexure-3 deserves to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, it is ordered. 9. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 5th April, 2025 at Annexure-3 passed in connection with CMC No.6 of 2025 of learned JMFC, Rampur corresponding to Lachhipur P.S. Case No.20 of 2025 is hereby set aside with a direction to immediately direct release of the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-03-R-1544 in favour of the petitioner subject to enquiry and verification regarding its ownership and by imposing suitable conditions as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case. 10. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. Rojina (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 16-Jul-2025 10:57:05 Page 5 of 5