Full Judgment
A. Pasayat, J.
1. Though this matter was listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel for parties the same is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr. G. Mukherji for petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel.
2. Main grievance of the petitioner is that a truck bearing registration No. ORU 6845 has not been released to him either by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bonai (in short 'SDJM') or the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Bonai. Each has assigned different reason for not releasing the vehicle to him. Undisputedly, the truck in question was seszed by the Sub-Inspector, Lahunipara Police Station in connection with alleged offences under Secs. 379/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC).
The learned SDJM refused to release the vehicle on the ground that the petition Under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') was not maintainable. The Authorised Officer-cum D.F.O. refused to release the vehicle on a ground that the Divisional Forest Officer was authorised to deal with applications for release and he was a distinct authority from the Authorised Officer, and therefore, the Authorised Officer has no role to play in the matter of release of the vehicle seized. He also observed that there is no scope for interim release during pendency of the proceeding.
3. The position relating to release of vehicles seized by police officers and produced before the Authorised Officer under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, has been dealt with by this Court in several cases. Reference may be made to two decisions reported in 57 (1984) CLT 381 : Sarat v. State and (1988) 1 OCR 450 : Birendra Kumar Senapati v. Officer-in-charge, Baripada Police Station and Ors.. In the latter case, the facts were almost similar to the facts involved in the case at hand A Division Bench of this Court clearly held that the Authorised Officers had power to grant interim custody during pendency of a proceeding. The conclusion of the Authorised Officer to the contrary are entirely erroneous. As has been laid down in the said case, it is the Authorised Officer who is to deal with the application for release and he is also authorised to grant interim custody of the vehicle during pendency of a proceeding. The Authorised Officer seems to have not taken note of the aforesaid decisions of this Court. I, therefore permit the petitioner to move the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Bonai for interim release of the vehicle. If an application is made before him for release of the vehicle in question, he shall deal with the samp and dispose it of within a period of one week from the date of filing of the application.
The revision application is accordingly disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State for appropriate instruction to the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Bonai.