Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 948 (MP)

Umashankar v. State of M. P.

2000-09-03

S.S.SARAF

body2000
This is a criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.7.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Piparia, District Hoshangabad. The facts giving rise to this petition are these; The tractor and Trolley No. M.P.05-A-9268 and M.P.05-A-9269 have been seized by the Forest Department of Game Range. Matkuli. Pachmadhi Road. Piparia, as the Sagon log were being allegedly transported by the said vehicles. The case was registered as FOR 2205/17 dated 18.5.1997 for the purpose of confiscation of the seized tractor and trolley as well as the wooden log. The Director, National Park, Pachmarhi has passed an order under Section 39 (1) (d) of the Wild Life Protection Act (For short "The Act") as amended by the Act No. 44 of 1999, confiscating the tractor and trolley and wooden log in favour of the State Government. Against the said order, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner which was ultimately heard by the Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3769/97 [ 2000 (1) JLJ 304 ] (Umashunkar Bhargava v. State of M.P.). The Full Bench of this Court held that mere seizure of any property including vehicles on the charge of commission of an offence under the Act would not make the property to be of the State Government under Section 39 (1) of the Act. It was further held that such property including the vehicle seized on accusation or suspicion of commission of an offence under the said Act can, on relevant ground and circumstances, be released by the Magistrate pending trial in accordance with Section 50 (4) of the Act read with Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has also filed an application before the learned trial Court for getting the tractor and trolley released on Supurdnama. It was reported by the Government Advocate before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that the State intended to file SLP before the Supreme Court against the said order of this Court and it was also reported by the counsel for the petitioner that a contempt petition was also being filed against the Forest Authority, the learned trial Judge. It was reported by the Government Advocate before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that the State intended to file SLP before the Supreme Court against the said order of this Court and it was also reported by the counsel for the petitioner that a contempt petition was also being filed against the Forest Authority, the learned trial Judge. therefore, postponed the consideration of the application till the matter is decide ed either by this Court in contempt proceedings or by the Supreme Court in the S.L.P. Being aggrieved by the said order postponing the consideration, the present petition has been filed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that no SLP has yet been filed before the Supreme Court against the order of this Court in W.P. No. 3769/1997 ( 2000 (1) JLJ 304 ). It is also reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no contempt application has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that it was not proper on the part of the learned Magistrate to postpone the consideration of the application as the order of this Court in the above writ petition is absolutely clear and binded on both the parties. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. Since the matter has already been decided by the Full Bench of this Court. it was not proper on the part of the learned Magistrate to postpone the consideration of the application. The learned Magistrate has nothing to do with the decision in the contempt proceedings. if any. Secondly. unless the order dated 28.10.1999 passed by this Court in the said writ petition is quashed by the Supreme Court, it is a valid law and binding on the trial Court. therefore, the postponement of consideration of the application is neither proper nor justified and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable in law. The petition is therefore allowed. The impugned order dated 4.7.2000 is quashed. The learned Magistrate is directed to consider the application on merit in view of the decision of this Court in the said Writ Petition No. 3769/1997. C.C. be given as per rules.