Patna High Court
Manoj Ray @ Manoj Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, Bihar.
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that the FIR could not be quashed and the vehicle should be released only upon payment of the prescribed penalty in installments.
Summary
The petitioner, owner of a diesel TATA truck, claimed a valid prepaid challan authorising transport of yellow sand from 1‑Nov‑2024 to 2‑Nov‑2024. The vehicle was seized on 2‑Nov‑2024 by mining officials alleging overloading, and an FIR was lodged after an 18‑day delay under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 27 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and Section 56(2) of the Bihar Minerals Rules. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and release of the vehicle, arguing procedural lapses and no overloading. The respondents proved the truck was overloaded by 5.94 MT based on weighbridge measurement and imposed a penalty of Rs 8,15,930 under the 2019 Rules. The Court held that the delay and alleged procedural defects did not warrant quashing the FIR and directed the vehicle’s release only upon payment of the penalty in installments. The petition was therefore dismissed, with the only relief being the conditional release of the truck.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR lodged under Section 303(2) B.N.S., Section 27 MMDR Act and Section 56(2) Bihar Minerals Rules can be quashed on the ground of delay and alleged procedural irregularities.
- Whether the seizure of the petitioner’s truck was lawful given the alleged overloading and compliance with statutory procedures.
- Whether the penalty imposed under the 2019 Rules is valid and the vehicle can be released upon its payment.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 303(2)
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 — s. 27
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- overloading
- mining regulations
- quash FIR
- penalty
- writ of mandamus
- mineral transport
- procedural lapse
- compounding of offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.300 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-127 Year-2024 Thana- Jagdishpur District- West Champaran
======================================================
Manoj Ray @ Manoj Kumar Ray, S/o Kamata Ray, R/o Village- Khawaspur
Kala, Bhairopur Nizamat, P.S.- Saran Kotwali, District- Saran, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna,
Bihar. Bihar
2. The Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Mines Commissioner, Patna Bihar
Bihar
3. The District Mining Officer, Bettiah, District- West Champaran, Bihar, Bihar
4. The Station House Officer, Jagdishpur Police Station, Bettiah, District-West
Champaran, Bihar. Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Chhaya Kirti, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kameshwar Kumar, GP-17
For the Deptt. of Mines : Mr. Utsav Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 20-02-2026
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition
seeking following reliefs :
“(i) To issue an appropriate writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other writ(s),
order(s), direction(s) for issuance of
direction to the respondent authorities to
release the Vehicle i.e. a Diesel TATA Truck
(Goods Carrier) bearing registration number
as UP51AT0925 and the Chassis No.-
MAT466388F5J12443 in favour of petitioner,
which is seized by Respondent no.-4.
(ii) To issue an appropriate writ in the nature
of mandamus or any other writ(s), order(s),
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.300 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
2/13
direction(s) to the concerned respondent to
cancel/quash the proceedings in Jagdishpur
P.S. Case No.-127/2024 dated 20.11.2024
lodged under Sections 303 (2) of The
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 27 of
MMDR Act and Section 56(2) of The Bihar
Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal
Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules,
initiated against the petitioner seizing the
vehicle bearing registration number as
UP51AT0925 and the Chassis No.-
MAT466388F5J12443 as per Bihar Minerals
(Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation and Storage) Amendment
Rules, 2021.
(iii) To issue an appropriate writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other writ(s),
order(s), direction(s) for issuance of
direction to the concerned respondents to
examine in what circumstances the F.I.R. has
been lodged as Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.-
127/2024 dated 20.11.2024 lodged under
Sections 303 (2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, Section 27 of MMDR Act and
Section 56(2) of The Bihar Minerals
(Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation & Storage) Rules.
(iv) To issue an appropriate writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other writ(s),
order(s), direction(s) for issuance of
direction to the concerned respondents to
examine in what circumstances the Diesel
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.300 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
3/13
TATA Truck (Goods Carrier) bearing
registration number as registration number
as UP51AT0925 and the Chassis No.-
MAT466388F5J12443 of the petitioner has
been seized.
(iii) Any other relief(s) for which the
petitioner is found entitled to”.
2. Briefly stated, the facts, giving rise to the present
writ petition, are that the petitioner is stated to be the owner of
a Diesel TATA Truck (Goods Carrier) bearing Registration No.
UP-51AT-0925, Chassis No. MAT466388F5J12443. The
petitioner is engaged in transportation business. The petitioner
claims that he possessed a prepaid pass/challan issued by the
Government of Bihar, explicitly authorizing the transportation
of yellow sand within the specified time framed from
01.11.2024 at 06:38:21 P.M till 02.11.2024 at 06:38:21 P.M.
3. Further case of the petitioner is that while the driver
of the petitioner had been lawfully carrying out his duty of
transporting yellow sand well within permitted limit, mining
official stopped him on 02.11.2024 and proceeded to seize the
vehicle. Subsequently, after a delay of eighteen days, Jagdishpur
P.S. Case No. 127/2024 dated 20.11.2024 for the offences
punishable under Sections 303 (2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, Section 27 of Mines and Minerals (Development and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.300 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
4/13
Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'MMDR Act')
and Section 56 (2) of Bihar Mineral (Concession, Prevention of
Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019
(hereinafter referred to '2019 Rules'), has been lodged against
the owner of the vehicle and its driver.
4. From the FIR, it appears the vehicle was seized due
to overloading. The petitioner has approached this Court for
quashing of Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 127/2024 and for release
of his vehicle, in question as well as other consequential reliefs.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the respondent no. 4 has arbitrarily seized the vehicle of the
petitioner, who is the bonafide owner of the vehicle in question
and is engaged in business of transportation. For carrying sand
on the said vehicle, the petitioner has got a valid challan and the
driver was carrying the same. The validity period commenced at
06:38:21 P.M. on 01.11.2024 and it would have continued till
06:38:21 P.M. on 02.11.2024. Therefore, no offence as
mentioned in the FIR is made out against the petitioner or his
driver. The whole case of the prosecution is based on the
presumption that the vehicle of the petitioner was overloaded
and had been carrying sand for more capacity than the challan
issued for the transportation. Even the seizure memo was
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.300 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
5/13
prepared without following the procedure and without weighing
the sand. No independent witness was joined during the seizure,
which is a procedural requirement mandated by law. The
authority further failed to provide the copy of the seizure memo
to the co-accused driver of the vehicle and, therefore, it casts
serious doubt on the credibility and authenticity of the seizure
memo.
6. The learned counsel further submits that there is no
details about the manner in which the process of weighing of the
seized vehicle has been conducted by the respondent no.3 and
the result of such weighing which showed the vehicle being
overloaded leading to its seizure. The learned counsel further
submitted that before seizing the vehicle, concerned respondents
have failed to conduct any weighing of the yellow sand carried
by the truck and this oversight is particularly significant
considering that the vehicle possessed a valid challan issued by
the Government of Bihar explicitly for transportation of yellow
sand.
7. The learned counsel further submitted that the truck
of the petitioner was seized on 02.11.2024 and was kept under
custody in questionable manner and after an unexplained delay
of more than 18 days, the F.I.R. bearing Jagdishpur P.S. Case
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.300 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
6/13
No. 127/2024 was lodged and till date the seized truck is lying
in the premises of Jagdishpur Police Station without proper
shedding and the vehicle is deteriorating with each passing day.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Department of Mines vehemently contended that there
is no occasion to quash the FIR and the vehicle of the petitioner
has been rightly seized. The learned counsel further submitted
that on 02.11.2024, at around 9:30 P.M., during
inspection/checking of vehicles loaded with illegal minerals
near Jagdishpur Chowk by the officials of Mines Department,
the petitioner's vehicle (12 wheel truck) bearing Registration
No. UP-51AT-0925 was intercepted and on demand of challan,
a challan issued on 01.11.2024 at 6:38 P.M. which was valid till
02.11.2024 at 6:38 P.M. was provided. On perusal of challan, it
transpired that transportation of sand having quantity equal to
17.83 metric ton/445.75 CFT was permitted. However, on
physical inspection, it was found that the petitioner's vehicle
was overloaded and, therefore, after intercepting the petitioner's
vehicle, it was brought to the nearest weighbridge and the
vehicle was measured. On measurement, the gross weight of the
vehicle was found to be 35020 Kg. According to the registration
certificate of the vehicle, unladen weight of the vehicle was
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.300 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
7/13
11250 Kg. Since the petitioner was permitted to transport sand
for a weight of 17.83 MT (17830 kg), deducting the weight from
the gross weight of the vehicle, the same would come to 35020-
(17830 +11250)=5940 kg. So the vehicle of the petitioner was
overloaded with 5940 kg sand. Accordingly, a weighment slip
was duly handed over to the driver namely Ajit Singh, who
made his signature over the slip.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that after
seizure and finding that the vehicle was overloaded, the seized
vehicle was handed over to the respondent no. 4 for safe custody
with a letter bearing letter no. Camp-01 dated 02.11.2024 (part
of the F.I.R.) wherein it has been mentioned that the vehicle of
the petitioner was seized due to the overload and transportation
of sand and the key of the vehicle was kept in the police station.
10. The learned counsel then submitted that as per
provision of Rule 56 of 2019 Rules, the power has been granted
to the competent authority to compound the offences and the
Mineral Development Officer being the competent authority has
been vested with power to compound the offences within the
period of 30 days and thereafter, a recommendation would be
sent to the Collector of the district for initiation of confiscation
proceeding.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.300 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
8/13
11. The learned counsel further submitted that having
such power of compounding being vested with the competent
authority and having seized the vehicle on 02.11.2024, the
authority waited for some days so that the owner of the vehicle
may approach the respondent office for depositing the
compounding fee/penalty amount, amounting to Rs. 8,15,930/-
and when the said amount was not deposited by the petitioner,
therefore, having no option left, the Mines Inspector, Bettiah
submitted a written statement before the SHO, Jagdishpur
contained in letter no. Camp-01 dated 02.11.2024 to lodge the
F.I.R. against the driver and owner of the vehicle under the
relevant section of BNS and other mining laws and hence, the
F.I.R. bearing Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 127 of 2024 dated
20.11.2024 was registered.
12. The learned counsel then submitted that the
petitioner has wrongly mentioned that no procedural
requirement mandated by law has been performed during the
seizure of vehicle as once the vehicle in question was found to
be overloaded on physical verification, it was taken to the
nearest weighbridge for the weighment and on perusal of the
receipt of such weighment, it is apparent that the driver has
signed the same, therefore, the seizure, weighment and handling
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.300 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
9/13
over the vehicle to the Jagdishpur police station was done in
presence of the driver of the vehicle.
13. The learned counsel further submitted that
interception and seizure of the vehicle of the petitioner, the
assessment of the sand loaded on the vehicle was proper and
valid and considering the facts and circumstances, the FIR
cannot be quashed.
14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties.
15. The challenge to the action of the respondent no.3
is on the ground that the vehicle of the petitioner was not
overloaded and transportation was being done under a valid
challan. Another ground taken for quashing the FIR is delay of
18 days in lodging the FIR.
16. Admittedly, the vehicle of the petitioner has been
plying and transporting sand under a valid challan since this fact
has not been disputed by the respondent-Mining Department.
However, the seizure has been made under Rule 56(1) of ‘2019
Rules’ and penalty has been provided under Section 56(2) of
‘2019 Rules’. It has also been submitted on behalf of
Department of Mines that the truck was weighed on a
weighbridge and it was found to be carrying sand in excess of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.300 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
10/13
about 6 MT. This weighing is in consonance with Rule 60(2) of
‘2019 Rules’. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner about
there being no overloading and process of re-weighing not being
followed is not sustainable.
17. So far as delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the
same has been explained by the respondent no.3 by submitting
that since the offence was compoundable before the mining
authorities, they waited for the petitioner to turn up to get the
case compounded and finding no response from the petitioner,
the present FIR was lodged. Even otherwise, the delay in
lodging the FIR could not be a ground for quashing the FIR.
18. So far as claim of the petitioner about procedure
not being followed rendering the whole process illegal is
concerned, it is settled law that non-adherence to other
procedural safeguard ipso facto would not have rendered the
FIR liable to be quashed. However, these issues could be taken
up before the learned trial court to the advantage of the
petitioner.
19. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid facts and
circumstances and discussion made here-in-before, I am of the
opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case
for quashment of the Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 127/2024 and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.300 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
11/13
hence, the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted.
20. So far as the prayer of the petitioner regarding
release of the vehicle is concerned, it has been submitted on
behalf of the respondent Mining Department that a penalty
amount of Rs. 8,15,930/- has been imposed in terms of Rule
51(1)(b) read with Rule 56 of the ‘2019 Rules’ and the petitioner
can get the release of the vehicle by paying this penalty amount,
the petitioner has an available remedy in the form of an appeal
before the competent authority under Rule 67 of the ‘2019
Rules’. However, the truck of the petitioner has been seized on
02.11.2024 and almost 1 year and 3 months have elapsed and
the vehicle of the petitioner has been losing its road-worthiness,
hence I am of the view that the respondent authorities could be
directed to release the vehicle subject to payment of the penalty
amount in easy installments.
21. While dealing with the seized vehicles from time
to time by the police either in commission of various offences or
abandoned vehicles or vehicles which are recovered during
investigation of complaint of thefts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat,
(2002) 10 SCC 283 observed as under:-
“In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of
no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the
police stations for a long period. It is for the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.300 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
12/13
Magistrate to pass appropriate orders
immediately by taking appropriate bond and
guarantee as well as security for return of the
said vehicles, if required at any point of time.
This can be done pending hearing of
applications for return of such vehicles.
In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the
accused, owner, or the insurance company or
by third person, then such vehicle may be
ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the
said vehicle is insured with the insurance
company then insurance company be
informed by the Court to take possession of
the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner
or a third person. If Insurance company fails
to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as
per the direction of the Court. The Court
would pass such order within a period of six
months from the date of production of the said
vehicle before the Court. In any case, before
handing over possession of such vehicles,
appropriate photographs of the said vehicle
should be taken and detailed panchnama
should be prepared.”
22. Accordingly, the concerned respondent is directed
to release the Tata truck of the petitioner bearing Registration
No.UP-51AT-0925 on payment of penalty amount of
Rs.8,15,930/- in fifteen monthly installments. The Truck in
question would be released after payment of first installment of
Rs. 60,000/- before the authority concerned, on or before 30 th
March, 2026, and rest penalty amount would be paid in fourteen
equal monthly installments on or before 30 th of every month,
subject to further satisfaction of the court concerned, if the
petitioner is so inclined.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.300 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
13/13
23. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the
present petition stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 12.12.2025
Uploading Date 20.02.2026
Transmission Date 20.02.2026
Checking your session…