Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 123 (MP)

RANGE FOREST OFFICER, RAMPURA v. RODILAL

1986-04-21

K.L.SHRIVASTAVA

body1986
K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dt. 4-3-1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch Camp Manasa, in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 1986 whereby he has ordered that interim custody of the tractor and trolly in question be delivered to the non-applicant. ( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this revision petition are these. On 5-1-1986 the tractor driver was found with tractor bearing registration No. C. P. U. 5973 along with its trolly No. C. P. U. 5974 in the reserved forest area in District Mandsaur transporting forest produce without transit pass amounting to an offence under S. 36 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short 'the Central Act') and other offence constituted by contravention of the transit Rules 1961 framed thereunder. ( 3 ) THE offences were accordingly registered against the driver. The tractor and the trolly were seized and intimation under S. 52 (4) of the Central Act as substituted by Madhya Pradesh amendment in the Central Act regarding initiation of proceedings for confiscation was sent to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. ( 4 ) ON 27-1-1986 non-applicant Rodilal as the owner of the tractor and the trolly filed an application in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class having jurisdiction for their interim custody. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate in view of the intimation under S. 52 (4) of the Central Act rejected the application on the ground that he has no jurisdiction. ( 6 ) THE non-applicant then moved the Sessions Court in revision and the impugned order came to be passed. ( 7 ) THE applicants' contention is that in view of S. 52-C of the Central Act, the jurisdiction of the Courts stands ousted and under S. 52-B of the said Act the Sessions Court is invested with revisional jurisdiction to deal with the matter only after appellate order by the Appellate Authority (Conservator of Forests) concerned. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the non-applicant contends that after all the matter does fall for decision by the Court of Session and the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with in revision. ( 9 ) THE point for consideration is whether the impugned order deserves to be set aside in revision. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the non-applicant contends that after all the matter does fall for decision by the Court of Session and the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with in revision. ( 9 ) THE point for consideration is whether the impugned order deserves to be set aside in revision. ( 10 ) S. 52 (2) of the Central Act provides that where it is intended to launch criminal proceeding against the offender, report of seizure of forest produce and the vehicle etc. , has to be made by the forest officer or the police officer concerned to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. S. 54 of the Central Act provides as under : -"54. Procedure thereupon - Upon the receipt of any such report, the Magistrate shall, with all convenient despatch, take such measures as may be necessary for the arrest and trial of the offender and the disposal of the property according to law. "at this stage it is pertinent to reproduce S. 52 C (1) of the Central Act. It reads thus : -"52-C (1 ). On receipt of intimation under sub-sec. (4) of S. 52 about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property which is subject matter of confiscation, has been made, no Court, Tribunal or Authority (other than the authorised officer, Appellate Authority and Court of Session referred to in Ss. 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated under S. 52 notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force. 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated under S. 52 notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force. "it is clear from the provision that it ousts the jurisdiction of the Courts once there is intimation by the forest officer under S. 52 (4) of the Central Act regarding initiation of the proceedings for confiscation of the property and that bar of jurisdiction is lifted only under S. 52-B (1) of the Central Act which is in these terms : -"52-B (1) Any party to appeal, aggrieved by final order or by order of consequential nature passed by the Appellate Authority, may within thirty days of the order sought to be impugned submit a petition for revision to the Court of Session within the Sessions division whereof the headquarters of the Appellate Authority are situated. "it is clear from the provision that the Court of Session gets revisional jurisdiction over the order of the Appellate Authority and, therefore, the view taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that he being invested with revisional jurisdiction he can exercise powers and pass orders for interim custody irrespective of any order by the Appellate Authority has no legal sanction. ( 11 ) THE Madhya Pradesh amendments in the Central Act have been made with a view to prevent the growing menace of ruthless exploitation of Government forests by illicit felling of teak and other valuable forest produce by unscrupulous traders by providing for a machinery for confiscation by the forest Authorities. In this connection the decision in Division Forest Officer v. G. V. Sudhakar Rao, AIR 1986 SC 328 may usefully be perused. It relates to Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and it has been held that the High Court under S. 482 of the Criminal P. C. 1973 (for short 'the Code' cannot stay the proceedings for confiscation pending the disposal of the connected criminal case against the accused. In the decision in Mirza Iqbal Hussain's case AIR 1983 SC 60 it has been pointed out that where the special law is silent regarding confiscation, the provisions of the Code shall apply. In the decision in Mirza Iqbal Hussain's case AIR 1983 SC 60 it has been pointed out that where the special law is silent regarding confiscation, the provisions of the Code shall apply. ( 12 ) IT may be stated that decisions pertaining only to the provisions of the M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 cannot be urged as authorities applicable to the case in hand which also pertains to offence under S. 26 of the Central Act. Want of intimation about initiation of proceedings for confiscation also constitutes a distinguishing feature. ( 13 ) IN the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and that of the learned trial Court is restored. Revision allowed. .