Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 736 (UTT)

Mohd. Tazim v. State of Uttarakhand

2012-12-06

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2012
ORDER Having heard the learned counsel, it appears that on 8.2.2007, the police seized the vehicle being owned by the petitioner, which was found indulged in the forest crime while carrying a lot of sandalwood without any permission, and this way, the sandalwood was believed to be stolen from the forest. 2-3. Learned Magistrate passed the order on 14.3.2007 whereby he released the vehicle in favour of petitioner. The said order dated 14.3.2007 was overturned by the Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar vide the impugned order dated 24.4.2007. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed this petition and vide order dated 23.5.2007, this Court directed that the vehicle, if already released, shall not be taken back from the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by the Sessions Judge. But on 20.11.2012, this petition was dismissed for want of prosecution thereby vacating the interim order. Now, the restoration application has been filed. 4. Learned counsel has been heard on the restoration application, as also on the merits of the petition. It was argued that where the vehicle was seized by the Police, then only the Magistrate is competent to release the same, as has been envisaged u/S. 452, Cr. P.C., which in the instant case, has been done by him vide order dated 14.3.2007. 5. At this stage, it is relevant to reproduce sub-section (1) of Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand: 52-A. Procedure on seizure (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of any forest produce, which is the property of the State Government, the officer seizing the property under sub-section (1) of section 52 shall, without unreasonable delay, produce it together with all the tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other articles used in committing the offence before an officer, not below the rank of a Divisional Forest Officer, authorized by the State Government in this behalf, who may, for reasons to be recorded, disposal or distribution of such property, and in case of tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other articles, may also confiscate them. 6. 6. The aforesaid quoted provision makes it abundantly clear that where the vehicle has been seized on being found indulged in the forest offence, then the same can only be released by the officer not below the rank of a Divisional Forest Officer, being authorized by the State Government in this behalf. Thus, this provision takes away the powers of the Magistrate to release the vehicle, nonetheless it was seized by the police. The Scheme of the Act, as expressed in the aforesaid Section, is to vest power in the Authorized Officers of the Forest Department for proper implementation/ enforcement of the statutory provisions and for enabling them to take effective steps for preserving the forests and forest produce. For this purpose, certain powers including the power of seizure, confiscation and forfeiture of the forest produce illegally removed from the forests have been vested exclusively in them. The Magistrate while dealing with a case of any seizure of forest produce under the Act should examine whether the power to confiscate the seized forest produce is vested in the Authorized Officer under the Act and if he finds that such power is vested in the Authorized Officer then he has no power to pass an order dealing with the custody/release of the seized material. I am fortified in my above view with the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. K.A. Kunchindammed reported in AIR 2002 (SC) 1875 . 7. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the Court feels that the learned Sessions Judge was absolutely correct in holding that on facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is the Authorized officer who is vested with the power to pass order of interim custody of the vehicle and not the Magistrate. Thus, there is no merit in this petition which is liable to be dismissed. 8. For the reasons as afore-stated, the restoration applications, as well as the C482 petition, being devoid of any merit, are dismissed. Revision dismissed.