Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1172 (MP)

Rajiv Chourasiya v. State of M. P.

2013-09-26

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
ORDER N.K. Gupta, J. 1. The applicant has moved the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 27.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chhatarpur in Criminal Revision No. 149/05, whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed. The facts of the case, in short are that, on 3.4.2004 at the forest check-post Matguwa, District Chhatarpur the applicant was found plying a jeep No. MP 16-B/2943. The applicant was driver as well as the owner of the said vehicle. In the vehicle, some teak woods were loaded and no transit pass could be shown by the applicant. Thereafter, a case was registered against the applicant and confiscation proceedings were initiated against him. The Confiscation Authority vide order dated 7.6.2004 directed to confiscate the vehicle. In the appeal No. VII-72/11, the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 9.6.2005 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a criminal revision, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Chhatarpur vide order dated 27.10.2005. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised a single objection that the vehicle was seized by the forest guard, who was not an authorized person under Section 15 of the M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 [hereinafter referred as 'the Adhiniyam'] and therefore when seizure was not according to the law, no confiscation proceeding could not initiated. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed the reliance upon the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the Case of "Ramlal Vs. State of M.P." [ 2003(4) M.P.H.T. 354 ] and therefore, it is prayed that the vehicle may be released. 4. On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the order of confiscation officer was confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge and therefore, on factual aspect it attained the finality. Hence, it is prayed that no interference is required by this Court. 5. 4. On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the order of confiscation officer was confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge and therefore, on factual aspect it attained the finality. Hence, it is prayed that no interference is required by this Court. 5. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent from the Section 15 of the Adhiniyam that any forest officer as may be notified by the State Government could seize the vehicle and confiscation proceeding could be initiated. In the present case, according to the seizure memo (Annexure-A/1 page 5), the vehicle was seized by the forest guard namely Ram Milan Pandey and it was for the forest officers to show that the State Government has authorized a forest guard as a forest officer, otherwise the seizure was without jurisdiction. In the case of Ramlal (supra), it was found that the forest guard was not authorized as forest officer for the purpose of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam and therefore prima facie, the seizure was of without jurisdiction in the light of the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Ramlal (supra). 6. When the seizure was not done by the competent officer then, no confiscation proceeding could be initiated. It is true that some timber logs were found in the vehicle as proved by the employees of the forest department before the confiscating authority and the order of confiscation was confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but no confiscation proceeding could be initiated, because the seizure was done by the forest guard then, the order passed by the confiscating authority was also beyond the jurisdiction. Hence, the vehicle seized by the forest department cannot be confiscated. 7. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. filed by the applicant can be accepted and hence, it is hereby allowed. The orders passed by the Confiscation Authority, Appellate Authority and the learned Additional Sessions Judge are hereby set aside. It is directed that the applicant is free to take his vehicle No. MP 16-B/2943 from the forest officers. P.C. filed by the applicant can be accepted and hence, it is hereby allowed. The orders passed by the Confiscation Authority, Appellate Authority and the learned Additional Sessions Judge are hereby set aside. It is directed that the applicant is free to take his vehicle No. MP 16-B/2943 from the forest officers. Copy of this order be sent to all the authorities below alongwith their records for information and compliance.