Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 855 (MP)

Gang Ranger v. Ram Lakhan Singh

2016-09-22

ROHIT ARYA

body2016
ORDER 1. Petitioner/State taking exception to the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena in Revision Petition No.250/2009 dated 12.8.2010 has filed the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this writ petition are to the effect that a tractor bearing registration No.MP-06/JA-4182 having been found carrying the sand in the prohibited forest area was seized on 20.9.2009. The intimation thereof was duly sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class on the same day. The owner of the tractor; respondent, had filed an application before the JMFC for release of the tractor on Supurdaginama. The application was rejected vide order dated 9.11.2009. Being aggrieved thereby, the revision petition was filed. The revisional Court has set aside the order passed by the JMFC and ordered for release of the vehicle on Supurdaginama exercising the powers under sections 451 and 457 of CrPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner/State has raised preliminary jurisdictional issue related to the competence and authority of the revisional Court for release of the seized vehicle in the teeth of the intimation being forwarded on 20.9.2009 to the JMFC and the bar of the jurisdiction as contained under section 52C of the Indian Forest Act (M.P. amendment). For ready reference the same is reproduced below :- “52C. Bar to Jurisdiction of Courts, etc. under certain circumstances.- (1) On receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52 about initiation of proceedings for confiscation or property by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property which is subjectmatter of confiscation, has been made, no Court, Tribunal or Authority (other than the authorised officer appellate authority and Court of Sessions referred to in sections, 52, 52A, and 52B shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated under section 52, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force. Explanation.- Where under any law for the time being in force, two or more Courts have jurisdiction to try forest-offence, then receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52 by one of the Courts of Magistrate having such jurisdiction shall be construed to be receipt of intimation under that provision by all the Courts and the bar to exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such Courts. (2). Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the power saved under section 61.” 4. It is contended that once the vehicle was seized and intimation was given, neither the Magistrate nor the revisional Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the application for release of the vehicle on Supurdaginama under sections 451 and 457 of CrPC. It is only after the conclusion of the proceedings of confiscation the appellate Court or the revisional Court has the jurisdiction to entertain such an application, as provided for under the aforesaid provision. 5. Upon perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the revisional Court did not take note of the aforesaid prohibition under the Act and has entered into the merits of the contentions regarding justifiability of retention of vehicle under seizure. Consequently, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, the same is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. However, after the confiscation proceedings have come to an end, the respondent shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application before the appellate Court or the revisional Court, as the case may be, for release of the vehicle on Supurdaginama and the same shall be dealt with on its own merits. Harish Dixit and Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, Government Advocate for petitioner/State; R. B. S. Tomar for respondent.