Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 216 (ORI)

Narayan Tripathy v. State of Orissa

2012-04-25

SANJU PANDA

body2012
JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. The Petitioner has filed this criminal revision challenging the Order Dated 13.02.2012 passed by the Learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur in CMC No. 17 of 2012 arising out of G.R. Case No. 40 of 2012 rejecting his application filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle bearing registration number OR-19-C-0577. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On the report of ASI of Ghashipura P.S. Station, Ghasipura P.S. Case No. 21 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 40 of 2012 was registered. During course of investigation, the I.O. seized the aforesaid vehicle loaded with 42 numbers of Sisal wood. The vehicle was seized on 20th January, 2012 at about 7 A.M. & the same is kept at the police station. The Petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle filed an application under Section 457 Cr.PC. before the Court below for release of the vehicle as he had a valid permit & obtained contract carriage permit No. CC/PP/09/190/10 to use the vehicle for carrying the passengers in all motor-able roads inside Orissa. His application was rejected by the Court below on the ground that the vehicle was involved in a forest offence & seized by the police authorities & the forest produce was handed over to the forest authorities for initiating confiscation proceeding. The Court below further observed that since the I.O. has already intimated to the forest authorities for initiation of confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Forest Act, it has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle under Section 457 Cr. PC. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Basant Nayak & others, (2000) 18 OCR 4 has held that when the vehicle & forest produce were seized & intimation thereof was given to the Learned S.D.J.M., it has the jurisdiction to deal with the application under Section 457 Cr. PC. & his jurisdiction is not affected merely because a proceeding under Section 56 of he Orissa Forest Act has been initiated. The said decision was rendered by this Court taking into consideration the decision reported in Vol. 57 (1984) CLT 381 (Sarat Kumar Malu v. State of Orissa) & (1988) 1 OCR 116 : 1988 (I) 1988 OLR 116 (Srinibas Panda v. State of Orissa). The said decision was rendered by this Court taking into consideration the decision reported in Vol. 57 (1984) CLT 381 (Sarat Kumar Malu v. State of Orissa) & (1988) 1 OCR 116 : 1988 (I) 1988 OLR 116 (Srinibas Panda v. State of Orissa). In view of he same since in the present case, the police authorities seized the vehicle & intimation thereof was given to the Learned S.D.J.M., the vehicle should have been released by the Learned S.D.J.M. in favour of the Petitioner on such terms & conditions as he may deem fit & proper. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned order. 4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that as the Investigation Officer has already intimated the seizure of the vehicle involved in an offence under the Forest Act by submitting the offence report, the Court below has rightly rejected his application filed under Section 457 Cr. P. C. In support of his submission, he has cited a decision of this Court in the case of Kuril Tiria v. State of Orissa, (2007), 36 OCR 828 wherein this Court has held that in case the vehicle involved in forest offence is seized by the police authorities & the vehicle & the forest produce are handed over the forest authorities for initiating confiscation proceeding, the criminal Court would have no power under Section 457 Cr.P.C. However, Section 457 Cr.P.C. petition can be entertained by the Magistrate if the vehicle seized by the police in connection with forest offence is produced before the Magistrate & no confiscation proceedings is pending. 5. From he rival submissions of the parties & after perusal of the case diary, it appears that the I.O. has submitted offence report to the forest authorities. However, no material has been produced before this Court whether any confiscation proceeding has been initiated & registered by the forest authorities. The vehicle was seized since 20th January, 2012 & the same was produced before the Court below. However, no material has been produced before this Court whether any confiscation proceeding has been initiated & registered by the forest authorities. The vehicle was seized since 20th January, 2012 & the same was produced before the Court below. Therefore, the ratio decided in Kuril Tiria's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case; rather the ratio decided in bas ant Nayak's case (Supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case as the I.O. has already registered Ghasipura P.S. Case No. 21 of 2012 corresponding to G R. Case No. 40 of 2012 & intimated the fact of seizure the vehicle to the Learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur. Therefore, undoubtedly the Learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to deal with the application under Section 457 Cr.P.C & pass the order. The Learned S.D.J.M did not lack jurisdiction only because the offence report was submitted before the forest authorities under the Orissa Forest Act & the fact that the confiscation proceeding was registered & the same is pending. 6. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the impugned Order Dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur in C.M.C. No. 17 of 2012 arising out of G.R. Case No 40 of 2012 & directs him to release the vehicle bearing registration number OR-19-C-0577 after verifying the relevant documents with such terms & conditions as he may deem fit & proper with further condition that the Petitioner shall furnish cash security & bank guarantee as per the value of the vehicle reflected in the current insurance policy. The CRL. REV. is accordingly allowed. No costs. CRL REV allowed.