Orissa High Court
Md. Arman Khan vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party on 9 March, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.146 of 2026
(In the matter of an application under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 read with
Section 442 of the BNSS Act, 2023)
Md. Arman Khan
.... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Das, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 09.03.2026
V. Narasingh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the state.
2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred
assailing the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the
learned J.M.F.C., Barbil, Keonjhar in CMC No.225 of
2025 arising out of 2(C)CC Case No.105 of 2025,
whereby the prayer of the Petitioner for release of his
vehicle, namely Truck bearing Regd. No. OD-16E-
2065 having its Chassis No.MAT541109J1D 12464
and Engine No.1SB5.9B4S180T181D63685757, stated
CRLREV No. 146 of 2026
Page 1 of 7
to be involved in an offence under Section 21 of
The Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) read with Rule
12(1) of the Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft,
Smuggling & Illegal Mining And Regulation of
Possession, Storage, Trading and Transportation)
Rules, 2007 (OMPTS Rules), was rejected.
3. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of the
said vehicle, which was seized by the Mining Officials
of the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda Circle, on the
allegation of its involvement in the commission of an
offence under Section 21 of the MMDR Act read with
Rule 12(1) of the OMPTS Rules.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Das,
assails the impugned order on two counts: first, that
the finding of the learned Court to the effect that,
since confiscation proceedings have been initiated and
the vehicle itself constitutes “evidence”, as such the
same cannot be released, is unsustainable; and
second, that in view of the provisions contained in the
MMDR Act, being a Central legislation, confiscation
proceedings under the OMPTS Act could not have
been initiated.
5. It is apt to note that the ground relating to
maintainability of the proceedings under the OMPTS
Rules was admittedly not raised before the Court in
seisin. However, since it is a question of law, the
same is permitted to be urged before this Court.
CRLREV No. 146 of 2026
Page 2 of 7
6. Learned counsel for the State opposes such
prayer and states that there is no infirmity in the
impugned order warranting interference by this Court
in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
7. To fortify his submission that proceedings
under the OMPTS Rules could not have been
instituted, learned counsel for the Petitioner places
reliance on the judgments of this Court in Tafzil
Sarwar vs. The Dy. Director, Mines Joda Circle1
and Hiranmaya Das vs. State of Orissa2 as well as
M/s. Jai Durga Iron Pvt. Ltd. vs. Superintendent
of Police, Sundergarh and Anr3.
7-A. On a perspicuous analysis of the judgments
cited above, this Court finds substance in the
submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that, in view of the MMDR Rules being a Central
legislation, confiscation proceedings could not have
been initiated.
Relevant extract of the judgments is culled out
hereunder:
In the case of Tafzil Sarwar(supra)1, this
Court observed thus;
“”xxx xxx xxx
8. ……when the superior legislation specifically
empowers a Court for disposal of the property
seized under Section 21(4) of the Act, the Rule
made by the State Government for disposal of1 Tafzil Sarwar v. Dy. Director, Mines, 2015 SCC OnLine Ori 684
2 Hiranmaya Das v. State of Orissa, 2017 SCC OnLine Ori 44
3 M/s. Jai Durga Iron (P) Ltd. v. Superintendent of Police, Sundergarh, (2006) 34 OCR 655CRLREV No. 146 of 2026
Page 3 of 7
such property authorizing another authority
besides the Court competent, is inoperative… and
the State Government in its rule making power
under Section 23C of the MMDR Act could not
have authorized any other authority for
confiscation of the same.
“xxx xxx xxx”
This Court in the case of Hiranmaya
Das(supra)2 held thus;
“xxx xxx xxx
8. …….Since confiscation of any property seized
under sub-section (4) of section 21 of the Mines
& Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957
(hereafter ‘1957 Act’) has to be made by an
order of the Court competent to take cognizance
of offence as per sub-section 4-A of the said
section 21 of 1957 Act and such Court is also
empowered to take a decision in the matter of
release of the seized property in accordance with
law…
xxx xxx xxx”
This Court in the case of M/s. Jai Durga Iron
Pvt. Ltd.3 in paragraphs-12 and 13 has held as follows:
“12. From the above, it is clear that the State
Act legislated by the State Legislature being in
relation to Entry 23 of List-Il in the 7th Schedule
of the Constitution, which is with regard to
Regulation of Mines and Minerals Development,
the same is subject to the provisions of List-1
with respect to Regulation and Development
under the control of the Union. Thus, the above
State Act was in force as no similar provisions
were included in the M.M. (D.&R.) Act which is a
Central legislation under Entry 54 of List-I of the
7th Schedule. In view of the declaration made inCRLREV No. 146 of 2026
Page 4 of 7
Section 2 of the M.M.(D&R) Act, the moment
similar provisions as contemplated in the State
Act were provided for in the M.M.(D&R) Act by
way of amendment with effect from 18.12.1999,
the said provisions in the State Act became
inoperative being occupied by the central
legislation.
13. In view of the above amendment brought to
the M.M.(D&R) Act by the central legislation with
effect from 18.12.1999, in our considered view,
the provisions of Section 12 of the M.M.(D&R) Act
with regard to penalty which can be imposed on
a person who fails to comply with or contravene
any of the provisions of the State Act and the
provisions of Section 16 of the State Act with
regard to seizure of property liable to be
confiscated and prosecution for such offences
under Section 12 of the State Act can no longer
be made applicable to minerals which are
covered in the M.M.(D.&R) Act.”
However, since such aspect need not be gone
into for adjudicating the grievance of non-release of
the vehicle, this Court keeps the said question open
for consideration, in the factual matrix of the case at
hand.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen
that the sole ground on which the prayer for release
of the vehicle was rejected is the initiation of
confiscation proceedings.
9. The law is no longer res integra regarding
release of vehicles involved in offences. In this
context, respectful reference may be made to the
CRLREV No. 146 of 2026
Page 5 of 7
case of Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam4 , as well
as the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vrs. State of
Gujarat5 which has stood the test of time and has
also been reiterated in the case of Bishwajit
Dey(supra)4.
For convenience of ready reference, the
relevant excerpt of Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai(supra)5 is culled out hereunder;
“xxx xxx xxx
11. With regard to valuable articles, such as,
golden or silver ornaments or articles studded
with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of
no use to keep such articles in police custody for
years till the trial is over. In our view, this
submission requires to be accepted. In such
cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate
orders as contemplated under Section 451 CrPC
at the earliest.
xxx xxx xxx"
The relevant paragraph of Bishwajit
Dey(supra)4 is extracted hereunder;
“xxx xxx xxx
32. Undoubtedly, the vehicle is a critical piece of
material evidence that may be required for
inspection to substantiate the prosecution’s case,
yet the said requirement can be met by
stipulating conditions while releasing the vehicle
in interim on superdari like videography and still
photographs to be authenticated by the
investigating officer, owner of the vehicle and
4
Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241
5
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vrs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283
CRLREV No. 146 of 2026
Page 6 of 7
accused by signing the said inventory as well as
restriction on sale/transfer of the vehicle.
xxx xxx xxx”
10. On the touchstone of law laid down by the
Apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that
no useful purpose would be served by exposing the
vehicle to the vagaries of nature and, accordingly, the
impugned order dated 18.12.2025 passed in CMC
No.225 of 2025 by the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil,
Keonjhar is set aside.
The vehicle in question shall be released in
favour of the Petitioner on his establishing ownership
thereof, subject to such other stipulations as may be
imposed by the learned Trial Court.
11. Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 9th March, 2026/Soumya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 11-Mar-2026 09:45:51
CRLREV No. 146 of 2026
Page 7 of 7