Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1134 (RAJ)

Sunnalal v. State of Rajasthan

2006-04-10

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 111.2004 and 07.06.2005. By the former order the Judicial Magistrate, Srimadhopur, District Sikar had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for the Supurdgi of his tractor. By the latter order the former order was confirmed and the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neem-Ka-Thana Camp at Srimadhopur, District Sikar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.11.2004, the tractor bearing Registration No. RJ-23-R-5513, was seized by the SHO Police Station Khandela, District, Sikar on the ground that the tractor was carrying the wood of Khejari tree and of Runjh tree. For the transportation of the said wood, the registered owner of the tractor did not have any license. While registering a case under Sections 41 and 42 of the Forest Act, the Police also seized the said tractor. In order to seek the Supurdgi of the said tractor, the petitioner moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate. However, vide order dated 111.2004 the Judicial Magistrate dismissed the said application. Subsequently, the petitioner moved a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Srimadhopur, District Sikar. However, vide order dated 07.06.2005 the said revision petition was also dismissed by the learned Judge. Hence, this petition before us. 3. Undoubtedly, the forests need to be protected. For deforestation leads to economic imbalance and environment hazards. However, simultaneously a balance has to be maintained between the national loss in the form of depreciation of the vehicles and conservation of environment. While the protection of the environment is essential, the sustainable development of the economy is equally important. Thus, a balance should be struck between the two. 4. Chapter -XXXIV of the CrPC, and Chapter-IX of the Forest Act, 1927, both deal with disposal of property. While Section 451 of the Code empowers the Court to dispose of the property pending inquiry or trial, Section 53 empowers the Forest Officer to release the property. While both the Code as well as the Forest Act empower the seizure of the property, they also bestow a power on the Court/Officer to release the property. In the case of Sunder Bhai Amba Lal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (10) SCC 283, the Honble Supreme Court has laid down elaborate guidelines while dealing with valuable articles, and currency notes, vehicles seized, liquor and narcotic drugs. In the case of Sunder Bhai Amba Lal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (10) SCC 283, the Honble Supreme Court has laid down elaborate guidelines while dealing with valuable articles, and currency notes, vehicles seized, liquor and narcotic drugs. The Honble Supreme Court has held as under: It is of no use to keep such seized vehicle at the Police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner or the Insurance Company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the Insurance Company, then the Insurance Company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared. 5. Keeping in view these guidelines laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, we direct the S.H.O. Police Station Khandela, District Sikar to release the tractor, bearing Registration No. RJ -23-R-5513 to the petitioner provided that appropriate photographs of the tractor are taken by the Department and a detailed Panchnama is prepared. We further direct the petitioner not to transfer or to alienate the said tractor to a third party during the pendency of the trial and to produce the same before the Court, as and when called for. The tractor shall be released by S.H.O., Police Station Khandela, District Sikar within two weeks of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. 6. With these observations, the misc. petition is allowed.