[2026:RJ-JP:21400] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2494/2017 Gopal Vyas S/o Shri Rajendra Vyas R/o Barpara, Karauli, Tehsil And Distt. Karauli ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 08/05/2026 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner (for short, 'the petitioner') under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') against the impugned order dated 04.05.2017 passed by the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Karauli, District, Karauli (Raj.) (for short, 'the learned Revisional Court') whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge-Cum- Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, District Karauli (for short, 'the Trial Court'), was upheld. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that a case was registered at the Police Station Sapotra, District Karauli with the averments that the petitioner is a registered owner of the Truck No. RJ-34-G-0939, which has been registered with the HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited. It is alleged [2026:RJ-JP:21400] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-2494/2017] that on 01.04.2017, the petitioner carried the sand from Banas, which was loaded by the lease-holder, namely; Manoj Chawla. Subsequently, during the search conducted at Mandrayal, Police Station Sapotra, the truck was found to be weighing about 13 tonnes instead of 9 tonnes for which the royalty receipt was issued and the vehicle was then seized for the offence punishable under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court for Supurdagi of the seized vehicle, which came to be decided vide its order dated 19.04.2017 whereby a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac) was imposed as a compound fee, considering the vehicle as a full body Truck, as per the provisions of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short, 'the Rules of 2017') and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Being aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Revisional Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.05.2017. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the royalty on the sand was already paid and the provisions of the Rules of 2017 do not apply in the case of overloading. He further submits that it was the duty of the lease-holder to fill the sand and while doing that, there was no weighing machine available to weigh the same. [2026:RJ-JP:21400] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-2494/2017] 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Considered the averments made in the petition and the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and so also perused the material made available on record. 6. The relevant provisions of Rules 54(3) and 60 of the Rules of 2017 are produced as under:- "54. Illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals. - (3) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub- rule (1)and (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to five lacs rupees, or with both: Provided that the Additional Director Mines, Superintending Mining Engineer, Superintending Mining Engineer(vigilance), Mining Engineer, Mining Engineer(vigilance), Assistant Mining Engineer, Assistant Mining Engineer (vigilance), Mines Foreman, Surveyor or any other officer or official authorised by the Government, Director or Additional Director Mines may either before or after the institution of the prosecution, compound the offence committed in contravention of the sub-rule (1) and (2) on payment of cost of mineral and compound fee as mentioned below: - S.N Vehicle/Equipment Compound fee (in Rs.) per unit 1 2 3 1. Tractor trolley Twenty five thousand [2026:RJ-JP:21400] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-2494/2017] 2. Half Body truck Fifty thousand 3. Full Body Truck, Dumpers, Trolla, Wire saw, crane, excavator, loader, power hammer, compressor, drilling machine etc. One lacs Note:- Cost of the mineral shall be taken as ten times of royalty in lieu of rent, royalty, compensation for environmental degradation and tax chargeable on the land occupied without lawful authority, etc.. Provided that the amount of compound fee in cases other than specified as above shall not be less than rupees twenty thousand and shall be in addition to the cost of mineral. ... 60. Establishment of check posts or barriers and inspection of minerals in transit and weighment.- (4) Every owner or person incharge of a vehicle shall carry with him a valid rawanna, transit pass or royalty receipt duly authenticated by the department in respect of the mineral carried and shall produce the same before any officer incharge of a check post or other officer or official empowered under sub-rule (2). Explanation: Mineral shall not cease to be mineral by reason of being subjected to any process like crushing, breaking, drying, pulverizing, calcinising or any other procedure intended to make the mineral fit or suitable for sale or consumption. [2026:RJ-JP:21400] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-2494/2017] (5) Where the officer incharge of the check post or any other officer or official empowered under sub-rule (2) above has a reason to believe that royalty is likely to be evaded in respect of any mineral liable to be assessed for royalty, such officer may require the owner or person incharge of the vehicle to pay an amount equal to ten times of royalty in lieu of cost of mineral, rent, royalty, compensation for environmental degradation and tax chargeable on the land occupied without lawful authority, etc. along with compounding fee as specified in sub-rule (3) of rule 54: Provided that where on weighment or by measurement at the check post, it is found that the entire quantity of mineral is not covered by the rawanna, the amount of royalty on such difference, shall be recovered by the officer incharge of the check-post. ..." 7. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat Jodhpur in case of Nema Ram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc (Pet.) No. 3595/2021, decided on 15.09.2021 discussed the intention behind the above-stated rules, which are as under:- "10. Learned counsels for the petitioners have also emphasized upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Laxman v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2018) 0 Supreme (Raj.) 420, in which the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has dealt with the issue at large. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: "...18. The legislative intent behind enacting the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 is that if the vehicle [2026:RJ-JP:21400] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-2494/2017] without any lawful authority is found to be carrying any mineral, the same shall not only be liable to be seized but also confiscated.... 19. ...Sub-rule (3) of Rule 54 provides that whoever contravenes the provisions of sub rule (1) and (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine, which may extend to five lacs rupees, or with both. However, a power has been conferred on the named authorities in the proviso thereto that anyone of them may either before or after institution of the prosecution, compound the offence committed in contravention of the sub-rule (1) and (2) on payment of cost of mineral and compound fee, as mentioned therein. But the note there below provides that cost of the mineral shall be taken as ten times of royalty in lieu of rent, royalty, compensation for environmental degradation and tax chargeable on the land occupied without lawful authority etc. ..." 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur in case of Raju Lal Mali v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5758/2025, decided on 08.08.2025 has also held as under:- "8. Consequently, it is held that under the mining laws, the state authorities have the powers for initiating confiscation proceedings in relation to the vehicle seized for violation of the mining laws. It is once, the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the vehicle cannot be released on supurdaginama as prayed by the petitioner. However, the said vehicles can only be released on payment of penalty and compounding fees. ..." 9. In the present case, the seized vehicle falls under the category of full body truck, as per the provisions of Rule [2026:RJ-JP:21400] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-2494/2017] 54 of the Rules of 2017. While, only 9 tonnes of sand was permissible to be transported, the said truck was found overloaded with extra 4 tonnes of sand, which was being carried without any valid Rawanna and payment of royalty. 10. In a case where the vehicle truck is having registration as half body truck but, if found in the form of a full body truck at the time of seizure, loaded with river sand more than what could be loaded in a half body truck, is to be treated as full body truck for levying confiscation fee. 11. It is an accepted fact that before complying with the conditions enumerated in the order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Trial Court, the vehicle cannot be released on Supurdagi. Further, considering the provisions of Rules 54(3) and 60 of the Rules of 2017, the costs, compound fees, and royalty upon the sand have been rightly calculated by the learned Courts below. 12. Having regard to the judgments cited above and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds no error or illegality in the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition being devoid of merit, is hereby, dismissed. 14. In view of the order passed in the main petition, stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA/12