Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 283 (RAJ)

State v. Girraj Prasad

2010-02-04

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2010
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This Criminal Revision petition has been filed against the order dated 8th of February 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bharatpur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 85/2000 whereby he has reversed the order dated 4.12.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, No. 3, Bharatpur and releasing the forest produce, Silica Sand seized by the forest authorities. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under:- The respondent (Girraj Prasad) filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class , No. 3, Bharatpur under Section 457 Cr.P.C. regarding the Supurdgi of the Silica Sand seized by the forest authorities which was dismissed by the Court vide its order dated 4.12.2000. Against the said order, the non-petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bharatpur vide its order dated 8th of February 2001 reversed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, No. 3, Bharatpur and released the forest produce Silica Sand seized by the forest authorities to the non-petitioner by producing the Supurdginama of 50,000/- with two sureties of the same amount. 3. Against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur dated 8th of February 2001, this revision petition is preferred by the petitioner (State of Rajasthan). 4. The learned Public Prosecutor who is appearing on behalf of the petitioner (State of Rajasthan) is contended that the learned appellate court has committed an illegality by passing the said order. The Additional Sessions Judge has not appreciated that the seizure in question was made by the forest authorities under the powers conferred upon them by virtue of Section 52 of the Rajasthan Forest Act. He has further contended that the judgment of the appellate Court is contrary to the provisions of law. Hence, the judgment of appellate Court be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Vimal Choudhary appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner Mr. Girraj Prasad has contended that the revisional court has rightly passed the order and there is no illegality or irregularity in the aforesaid order of the appellate Court. Simply the court has released the goods by producing the Supurdginama of 50,000/- with two sureties of the same amount and non-petitioner is ready to comply with the order of the court. Girraj Prasad has contended that the revisional court has rightly passed the order and there is no illegality or irregularity in the aforesaid order of the appellate Court. Simply the court has released the goods by producing the Supurdginama of 50,000/- with two sureties of the same amount and non-petitioner is ready to comply with the order of the court. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner has further contended that the petitioner (State of Rajasthan) has failed to point out any question of law which involved in this matter. Hence, this revision petition be dismissed. 6. In view of the above, the revision petition filed by the State of Rajasthan is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 8th of February 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bharatpur. There is no order as to costs.