Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1168 (MP)

LAXMAN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2005-11-21

ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI

body2005
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr. PC has been filed challenging the order dated 11-5-04, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Devas (M. P.), in Criminal Revision No. 77/04. ( 2. ) ONE escort tractor with 22 pieces of teak-wood and two motor cycles was seized by the police Tonk-Khurd. The tractor with 22 pieces of teak-wood and motor cycles is said to be seized from the possession of the applicant Laxman s/o Sukhlal. A criminal case under Section 379 of IPC, sections 26, 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act and Section 5 (1) of Vanopaj vinirdipt Vyapar Adhiniyam was registered by the police and the case with seized property was entrusted to the Forest Department. The Forest Officer seized the property and initiated proceedings to confiscate the seized properties. The applicant filed an application under Section 457 of Cr. PC to get interim custody of the motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-89-JH 9304. The learned JMFC rejected the application of the applicant, hence, the applicant preferred revision against the order of the JMFC rejecting his application. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Devas by order dated 11-5-04, passed in Criminal Revision No. 77/04 rejected the revision of applicant. Hence, the applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. PC to quash the aforesaid order and to allow his application for interim custody of the motor cycles. ( 3. ) IT is evident from the perusal of the order dated 11 - 5-04, passed by the learned Second ASJ, Devas in Criminal Revision No. 77/04 that, the learned jmfc, Devas has rejected the application for interim custody as intimation about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property had been sent. According to Section 54 of the Indian Forest Act, as applicable in Madhya pradesh, before passing any order for disposal of property the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that no intimation under sub-section (4) of Section 52 has been received by this Court or by any other Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property has been made. As soon as the magistrate receives the intimation of initiation of the confiscation proceedings he looses jurisdiction to pass any order for the disposal of seized property. As soon as the magistrate receives the intimation of initiation of the confiscation proceedings he looses jurisdiction to pass any order for the disposal of seized property. In such a situation, the JMFC has not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner and the learned ASJ has not committed any error in rejecting the revision filed by the applicant against the order of JMFC. ( 4. ) THE learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the property was first seized by the police and then it was seized by the Forest officer, hence, the Magistrate had jurisdiction to make the order for interim custody of vehicle in question. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on 1996 (1) M. P. Weekly Notes 216, Sanman Singh Vs. State of M. P. and Sunderbhai ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 (II) M. P. Weekly Notes and on Abdul rashid Vs. State of M. P, 2001 (1) MPJR SN 17. In the case of Sanman Singh Vs. State of M. P. (supra), the effect of the initiation of confiscation proceedings and its intimation having been sent to the concerning Magistrate has not been considered. It appears rather the aforesaid question was not involved in that case. Hence, the applicant cannot derive any help from the aforesaid case. The questions decided in the cases of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), and Abdul Rashid Vs. State of M. P. , 2001 (1) MPJR SN 17 (supra), are not helpful in deciding the controversy involved in the present case that whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction to dispose the seized property even after receiving the intimation of initiation of the confiscation proceeding. The learned ASJ has rightly pointed out that the objection that the vehicle in question was never used in commission of the forest offence could be agitated in confiscation proceedings before the Forest Officer. The order passed by the learned ASJ is quite legal and proper and there is hardly any ground to invoke the extra-ordinary powers of this Court for quashing it. ( 5. ) HENCE, this petition, is hereby, dismissed as devoid of any merit. Misc. Cr. Case dismissed.