Prembai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Prembai vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jun 26, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1041191

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1041191
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jun 26, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prembai

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....and learned jmfc has no authority to confiscate the property in question. he 2 submits that learned jmfc could only try the offence but cannot direct confiscation of property. the procedure of confiscation has been prescribed in section 15 of mp vanopaj (vyapar vinimay) adhiniyam, 1969. he also furnished the document to the effect that confiscation proceedings are going on before competent authority/ sdo (forest).sehore for which notices have been given to petitioners.by perusing section 15 of the aforesaid adhiniyam, it is clear that jmfc can try the case, but cannot order for confiscation . order of confiscation can be made by some competent authority of forest department and if order of confiscation is there, then appeal could lie before conservator of forest and further revision before the sessions court. against judgment of confiscation passed by jmfc, petitioner prembai has filed criminal appeal no.87/11 and petitioner nandkishore has filed criminal appeal no.86/11 which have been dismissed by 2 nd addl.sessions judge, sehore and confiscation of property was held good. as the proceedings before competent authority are going on, so, order for supurdnama cannot be made. but looking to the circumstances of the case, the judgments of jmfc confirmed in appeals are hereby set aside and it is directed that petitioners shall take part in the confiscation 3 proceedings going on before the sdo (forest).sehore. sdo (forest).sehore is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. with the above directions, the petitions stand disposed of. (m.a.siddiqui) judge. jk.

Full Judgment

1 Criminal Revision No.1036/11 and Criminal Revision No.1038/11 26.06.2012.

Shri D.K.Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer for State.

Learned PL appearing for State submits that SDO (Forest).Sehore could not appear due to ailment of his wife.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that despite opportunity, SDO (Forest) is not appearing.

Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties.

The petitions are directed as against judgment dated 17.03.11, passed by JMFC, Sehore on 17.3.11 in Criminal Case No.224/07 with respect to petitioner Nand Kishore of Criminal Revision No.1038/11, and Criminal Case No.225/07 with respect to petitioner Prembai of Criminal Revision No.1036/11 by which teak wood has been ordered to be confiscated even in the case of acquittal of petitioneRs.1.342 Ghan Mtr.of teak wood has been found in possession of petitioner Nand Kishore and .866 Ghan Mtr.of teak wood was found in possession of petitioner Prembai .

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that property be given on Supurdnama to the respective petitioners till the decision of Forest Department as forest authorities are carrying on the proceedings of confiscation and learned JMFC has no authority to confiscate the property in question.

He 2 submits that learned JMFC could only try the offence but cannot direct confiscation of property.

The procedure of confiscation has been prescribed in Section 15 of MP Vanopaj (Vyapar Vinimay) Adhiniyam, 1969.

He also furnished the document to the effect that confiscation proceedings are going on before Competent Authority/ SDO (Forest).Sehore for which notices have been given to petitioneRs.By perusing Section 15 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam, it is clear that JMFC can try the case, but cannot order for confiscation .

Order of confiscation can be made by some competent authority of forest department and if order of confiscation is there, then appeal could lie before Conservator of Forest and further revision before the Sessions Court.

Against judgment of confiscation passed by JMFC, petitioner Prembai has filed Criminal Appeal No.87/11 and petitioner Nandkishore has filed Criminal Appeal No.86/11 which have been dismissed by 2 nd Addl.Sessions Judge, Sehore and confiscation of property was held good.

As the proceedings before Competent Authority are going on, so, order for Supurdnama cannot be made.

But looking to the circumstances of the case, the judgments of JMFC confirmed in appeals are hereby set aside and it is directed that petitioners shall take part in the confiscation 3 proceedings going on before the SDO (Forest).Sehore.

SDO (Forest).Sehore is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

With the above directions, the petitions stand disposed of.

(M.A.Siddiqui) Judge.

Jk.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Prembai vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education