Case Note & Summary
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur heard a batch of criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) challenging orders passed by Judicial Magistrates regarding the release of vehicles and machines seized in connection with alleged illegal mining and transportation of minerals, primarily bajri and sand. The petitioners sought release of their seized vehicles on personal security or Supardginama without payment of statutory dues, including the cost of minerals, compounding fee, and NGT compensation. The Magistrates had either rejected the applications or allowed them subject to deposit of such dues or furnishing a bank guarantee, relying on earlier decisions of the Rajasthan High Court and the Supreme Court. In a few cases, revision petitions filed against those orders were dismissed by the revisional court. The vehicles were seized by police and mining authorities under provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), and in some cases under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Simultaneously, the Mining Department initiated proceedings under Rules 54 and 60 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (MMCR Rules) and issued notices/demand orders to the owners or persons in charge. The core legal issues before the High Court were whether the deposit of statutory amounts or penalty could be made a condition precedent for release of seized vehicles under Section 503 BNSS; whether confiscation proceedings under the MMCR Rules commenced only upon filing of an application under Rule 54(6) before the Magistrate or passing of an order under Rule 60(7), or upon mere issuance of notices; whether criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings operated in different fields; and whether prosecution under the MMDR Act required a complaint by an authorized officer under Section 22. The petitioners argued that the condition of depositing statutory dues was illegal and arbitrary, that no confiscation proceedings had been initiated until an application under Rule 54(6) was filed, and that in the absence of a valid complaint under Section 22 MMDR Act, the vehicles should be released on personal security. They relied on precedents including Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of UP. The respondents, through the Additional Advocate General, contended that the orders were in consonance with the statutory scheme, that issuance of notices under Rules 54 and 60 amounted to initiation of confiscation proceedings, that the liability had crystallized and was recoverable as arrears of land revenue, and that criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings were independent. The court heard the arguments at length, reserved judgment, and the bench was to pronounce the judgment on 21.08.2026. The provided judgment text does not include the final holding or operative directions, so the ultimate decision on the petitions is not ascertainable from the extract.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Release of Seized Property - Section 503 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Whether deposit of statutory dues can be precondition for release - Petitioners contended that deposit of cost of minerals, compounding fee and NGT compensation as condition precedent for release of seized vehicles is illegal and arbitrary, and that no confiscation proceedings were initiated until filing of application under Rule 54(6) MMCR Rules before Magistrate. The court examined the scope of Magistrate's powers under Section 503 BNSS and the interplay with mining rules. (Paras 1-7) B) Mines and Minerals - Confiscation Proceedings - Rules 54 and 60, Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 - Commencement of confiscation proceedings - Petitioners argued that mere issuance of notice under Rules 54(5) or 60(5) does not amount to initiation; proceedings commence only upon application under Rule 54(6) to Magistrate or order under Rule 60(7). Respondents contended that issuance of notices is initiation and liability has crystallized. The court considered the statutory scheme and the arguments. (Paras 7, 10-13) C) Mines and Minerals - Criminal Prosecution and Confiscation - Sections 4, 21, 22 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Requirement of complaint by authorized officer - Petitioners contended no valid prosecution without complaint under Section 22 and cognizance; respondents stated criminal prosecution independent of confiscation. The court examined whether criminal prosecution and confiscation operate in different fields. (Paras 5, 14) D) Motor Vehicles - Seizure and Release - Section 207 Motor Vehicles Act - Release of vehicles seized for illegal transportation - Some vehicles seized under Section 207 MV Act; question of release conditions similar. The court considered whether release under personal security/Supardginama was permissible without payment. (Paras 3, 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether deposit of statutory amounts/penalty can be made a condition precedent for release of seized vehicles under Section 503 BNSS; whether confiscation proceedings under MMCR Rules are initiated only upon filing application under Rule 54(6) before Magistrate or order under Rule 60(7); whether criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings are independent; whether prosecution under MMDR Act requires complaint under Section 22
Final Decision
Not mentioned in provided judgment text.
Law Points
- Condition precedent of depositing statutory dues for release of seized vehicles challenged
- confiscation proceedings under MMCR Rules commence only upon filing application under Rule 54(6) before Magistrate or order under Rule 60(7)
- criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings operate in different fields
- prosecution under MMDR Act requires complaint by authorized officer under Section 22
- release should normally be on personal security/Supardginama unless statutory prohibition
