Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 402 (ORI)

Prahallad Sahoo v. State of Orissa and 3 others

2007-06-04

L.MOHAPATRA

body2007
ORDER 4.7.2007 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The order dated 19.5.2007 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Nilgiri in Crl. Misc. Case No.19 of 2007 rejecting an application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the truck bearing Registration No.OR-01-6247 in favour of the peti¬tioner is under challenge. 3. The aforesaid truck was seized by the Forester of Wild Life Protection Act on 1.12.2006 at Ranipokhari from the posses¬sion of one Bikram Marandi who was the driver of the truck. The truck was loaded with stone metals. The Forester gave intimation of the seizure to the learned Magistrate and the intimation was received by the learned Magistrate on 6.12.2006. However, P.R. was Act submitted by the Forester at that stage. The owner of the vehicle who is the petitioner before this Court filed an applica¬tion under Section 457 Cr.P.C. to release the truck in his favour. The said petition was rejected on 23.12.2006 on the ground that the petition was premature as no case was instituted in the Court of learned Magistrate. The said order was challenged in Criminal revision on 23.12.2006 but the revision was dismissed. Challenging both the orders, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.88 of 2007 before this Court. The said writ application was disposed of on 21.3.2007 directing the Authorised Officer under the Wild Life Protection Act to register a case and also consider the applica¬tion for interim release of the vehicle, if filed. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner moved the Authorized Officer under the said Act for release of the truck. The Authorized Officer disposed of the petition stating that there is no provision under the Act to initiate a proceeding for confiscation and there is also no provision for interim release of the vehicle. The peti¬tioner finding no other way again approached the learned Magis¬trate under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The said petition having been rejected in the impugned order, this writ application has been filed. 4. From the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate rejected the application solely on the ground that unless seizure of truck is reported by the police, Section 457 Cr.P.C. has no application. Admittedly, in this case, the report of seizure has been submitted by the Forester. 4. From the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate rejected the application solely on the ground that unless seizure of truck is reported by the police, Section 457 Cr.P.C. has no application. Admittedly, in this case, the report of seizure has been submitted by the Forester. Learned Magistrate lost sight of the decision of this Court in the case of Baikuntha Bihari Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, reported in (2001) 21 OCR 174 . In the said decision this Court held that even if the vehicle is seized by the Forest Officials and such seizure is reported by the Forester to the learned Magistrate, once there is a report of seizure, the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to release the vehicle in exercise of powers under Section 457 Cr.P.C. 5. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Magistrate to reconsider the application afresh in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid case. The WPCRL is disposed of accordingly. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. WPCRL disposed of.