Confiscation Of Vehicle Used For Illegal Mining Operates Independently Irrespective Of Pending Criminal Prosecution: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court held that where confiscation process had begun under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (“Rules”) and the liability/penalty payable in relation to the vehicle was determined, the vehicle could be released only upon payment of such statutory amount and not merely on personal security.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu also held that criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings under the mining laws operate separately and independently of each other. Hence, pendency or outcome of criminal prosecution did not postpone or nullify the proceedings undertaken under the mining laws.
"Another aspect requiring consideration is whether pendency of the criminal prosecution affects the statutory proceedings for confiscation and recovery under the mining laws. The criminal prosecution and the confiscation proceedings undertaken under the mining laws operate in distinct fields and serve different purposes. Criminal prosecution is directed towards determination of the criminal liability of the offender and imposition of punishment in accordance with law. Confiscation proceedings, on the other hand, concern the property or instrumentality involved in the illegal activity and are intended to provide an effective statutory mechanism for dealing with such property and preventing its further use in unlawful activities. They also serve as an effective deterrent against repeated violations of the mining laws. The confiscation mechanism is, therefore, an independent statutory remedy operating alongside the criminal prosecution"
For context, the Court was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrates that rejected their applications seeking release of seized vehicles under the Rules only on personal security or supurdignama, without payment of statutorily determined liability.
The concerned vehicles/machines were alleged to be involved in illegal mining/transportation of illegally mined minerals, mostly sand (bajri), and were seized by the police authorities, mining authorities and in some cases, motor vehicle authorities.
In most of the cases, FIRs were filed against the petitioners under the BNS and simultaneously proceedings for confiscation of vehicles was also initiated under the Rules. The petitioners filed applications for release of vehicles by furnishing personal security, but these were rejected.
The Magistrates observed that since proceedings were initiated under Rules 54 and 60 of the Rules, petitioners had to deposit cost of mineral, compounding interest and NGT compensation for release of the vehicles. Hence, the present petitions were filed challenging the orders.
It was the case of the petitioners that no confiscation proceedings could not said to have been undertaken against them until the conclusion of the criminal prosecution. Further, it was argued that no confiscation proceedings were initiated under Rule 54 of the Rules, since the mining authorities had not filed any complaint/application before the Magistrate.
The petitioners submitted there merely issuance of notice pursuant to seizing the vehicle, did not amount to confiscation proceedings till the time the Magistrate passed on order.
On the contrary, the state submitted that as per Rule 54 of the Rules, a 3 months period was granted to the defaulters for depositing the penalty, failing which the order was confiscation was passed by the Magistrate. However, such period was merely an opportunity to make the payment, and could not be seen as non-initiation of confiscation proceedings.
It was argued that once notices were issued by the Department, the confiscation proceedings were deemed to have been initiated, and the order of the Magistrate was merely the culmination of such proceedings.
The Court opined that once confiscation proceedings were initiated, the vehicle could not be released merely on personal security/supurdginama, but only after payment of the statutory liability.
Further, the Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the confiscation proceedings could be said to be commenced only after expiry of the 3 months period when the Magistrate passed the order thereafter. It was held that,
“The said period prescribed under 54(6) only provides an opportunity to the person concerned to compound the offence and discharge the statutory liability, before the seized property becomes liable to confiscation…Thus, once the liability has been determined and the demand and requisite notice informing the person concerned of the consequences of non-compliance are issued, the confiscation process can be said to have been set in motion for the purpose of considering the release of the seized vehicle…The fact that the final order of confiscation is to be passed at a subsequent stage does not mean that the confiscation proceedings had not already been initiated.”
The Court stated that if the petitioners' argument were to be accepted, it would lead to a situation where a person might deliberately refrain from depositing the requisite amount and seek release of the vehicle merely on personal security without securing the statutory dues, thus defeating the statutory scheme.
It was highlighted that the seized vehicle was important for securing compliance with the statutory conditions, and once confiscation proceedings had begun, releasing of the vehicle without securing such compliance would substantially dilute the efficacy of the mechanism.
It was not tenable that confiscation proceedings and liability under the mining laws could be enforced only upon conclusion of the criminal prosecution. The Court further observed,
“…illegal mining has serious consequences for the environment and public resources, and results in environmental degradation, depletion of natural resources held by the State in public trust and substantial loss to the public exchequer. The statutory scheme governing seizure, recovery of dues and confiscation of vehicles involved in such activities is intended to ensure effective enforcement of the mining laws and to prevent the consequences prescribed by law from being defeated merely because the criminal prosecution is pending."
In this background, the Court highlighted that in the present batch of petitions, the notices were issued under the Rules and the statutory liability was already determined. Hence, confiscation proceedings had already begun in all cases.
Accordingly, it was held that the orders of the Magistrates suffered from no illegality. All the petitions were dismissed.
Title: Phusaram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 361