R.N. Biswal, J.
1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 11.4.2005 passed by the S.D.J.M., Sundargarh in G.R.Case No. 123 of 2005 wherein he rejected the petition filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner holding that he lacked jurisdiction to release the Truck (Dumper) bearing Registration No. OR 16-6816 in his interim custody.
2. A nub of the fact leading to filing of this revision as per the prosecution case is that on 10.3.2004 while O.I.C. of Hemgiri P.S. alongwith his staff was engaged in patrolling duty, getting reliable information that coal was being transported in a truck from Tetelgadi Jungle they proceeded to that site and found the aforesaid truck being loaded with coal illegally parked inside the jungle near coal mine area. The O.I.C. seized the coal alongwith the truck and registered a case for the offence under Sections 379 IPC read with Section 12 of the Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling and Other Unlawful Activities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') giving rise to the aforesaid G.R.Case.
3. During pendency of the said case, the petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of the truck, filed a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.J.M., Sundargarh with a prayer to release it in his interim custody. The Magistrate rejected the petition since the vehicle had been handed over to the D.D.M., Rourkela (Competent Authority) for necessary action at his end and as such it was no more there at the P.S. and because of the provision of confiscation contained under Section 16 of the Act.
4. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal revision.
5. In this context it will be profitable to quote Sub-sections (1)(2) and (3) of Section 16 of the Act, which read as follows:
'16. Seizure of property liable to confiscation -
(1) Where there is reason to believe that an offence has been committed in respect of any mineral, such mineral, together with all tools, vehicles or other conveyances used in committing any such offence may be seized by an officer authorised by the Government in that behalf (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) or a Police Officer.
(2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark in such manner as may be prescribed, indicating that the same has been so seized and shall as may be. except where the offender agrees in writing to get the offence compounded, either produce the property seized before the competent authority or make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made.
(3) Where any mineral seized under Sub-section (1) produced before the competent authority under Sub-section (2) and he is satisfied that an offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may order confiscation of the mineral so seized and produced, together with tools, vehicles or other conveyances used in committing such offence.'
6. So, as per Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the said Act if there is reason to believe that any offence has been committed in respect of any mineral an Authorised Officer or a Police Officer can seize the minerals together with the vehicle, tools etc. used for commission of the offence. As per Subsection (2) where the offence is not compounded the officer seizing the minerals and the vehicle, tools etc. used for commission of the offence shall either produce the same before the competent authority or make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. If the minerals alongwith the vehicle or tools etc. seized are produced before the competent authority and he is satisfied that an offence has been committed in respect thereof he may order for confiscation of the same under Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act.
7. In the case at hand, as it appears after seizure of the minerals alongwith the truck the O.I.C. of Hemgiri Police Station produced the same before the D.D.M. Rourkela (Competent Authority).
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the vehicle has already been handed over to the competent authority, he has no case. He requested to pass necessary order enabling the petitioner to file a petition for interim custody of the vehicle in question before the competent authority. If so advised, the petitioner may file a petition before the D.D.M.. Rourkela (Competent Authority) for interim custody of the vehicle in his favour.
With this observation the revision stands dismissed.