.....all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the orissa state financial corporation. agreement between the orissa state financial corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the contract act, 1872 read with the provisions in the act, 1951 and its rules. on the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. thus, by virtue of the provision in section 56 read with section 64 (2) of the act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by orissa state financial corporation. by doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the orissa state financial corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. in other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the orissa state financial corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the act, 1972 or the act, 1951. [air 2002 orissa 130 overruled]. -- state financial corporations act, 1951.
section 29; discharge of loan orissa forest act (14 of 1972), section 56 confiscation of vehicle - held, the authorities under section 56 of the orissa forest act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of orissa state financial corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the orissa state financial corporation and.....order1. this revision application directed against the order dated 8.867 passed 'by the b. d.o. magistrate, first class, sadar, cuttack, granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party in g. r. case no. 1313/1699 t/67 of 1967. the state of orissa has filed this revision application on the allegation that there was no formal warrant of arrest issued against the opposite party. as such by merely appearing before the learned magistrate the opposite party could not obtain an order for anticipatory bail.2. mr. rahenoma, appearing for the opposite party, contends that this application has become anfractuous inasmuch as the case in question has now been woodlouse. mr. ramdas, appearing for the state, however, wants me to decide the question as to whether anticipatory bail can be granted in law. there was no consensus of judicial opinion on this point. majority of the high courts, however, had supported the view that there wa3 no provision for any anticipatory bail. reference may be made to a.i.r. 1950 e p 53 (fb), (amir chand v. crown a.i.r. 1954 madh b 113 (fb), state v. dallu punia , juhar mal v. state : air1955 cal141 , amjad v. state : air 1959 ap639 , public prosecutor v. manikya rao : air 1963 mp276 state of madhya pradesh v. narayan prasad a.i.r. 1966 mys 71, state of mysore v. baswanth rao and : air1967 ker189 , pulinthanam v. :state.some deoisions have also taken a contrary view, such as a.i.r. 1952 madh b 161, state v. mangilal and : air 1960 mp54 , abdul karim khan v. state of m. p. but the point has reoently been decided by the supreme court and their lordships have taken the view that there is no provision for any anticipatory bail within the home work of the code of criminal procedure. in my view of the opinion of the majority of the high courts as approved by the supreme court correctly represents the law. :this revision is disposed of accordingly.