Prafulla C. Pant, J.
1. This revision, is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2005, passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital, in criminal appeal No. 18 of 2004, and connected matters.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that certain forest produce (resin) was found being transported without valid papers, which were intercepted by the police. Accused Ramesh Chandra Pathak, Lalit Mohan Petshali, Kanti Swaroop Rawat, Sanjay Joshi, Gopal Sharma, Kamlapati Joshi and Ram Singh, were prosecuted in respect of offence punishable under Section 4/14 of U.P. Resin and Other Forest Produce (Trade Regulation) Act, 1976. The trial court convicted the said accused and sentenced each of them to two years simple imprisonment and also directed to each one of them to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. However, revisionist Kailash Chandra Petshali, and few others, claimed ownership of the property intercepted and moved an application before the trial court, which was rejected by said court, vide its order dated 24.07.2004. The convicts- Ramesh Chandra Pathak, Gopal Sharma, Kamla Pati Joshi and Ram Singh, filed criminal appeal No. 18 of 2004 and criminal appeal No. 20 of 2004, before Sessions Judge, Nainital, against their conviction and sentence, recorded by the trial court, while Lalit Mohan Petshali, Rajesh Bhatt and Rakesh Kumar Bhatt, filed criminal appeal No. 22 of 2004, 19 of 2004 and 21 of 2004. All the five criminal appeals were disposed of vide impugned order dated 28.02.2005, by the Sessions Judge, Nainital, in which conviction, recorded by the trial court, against appellants-Ramesh Chandra Pahtak, Gopal Sharma, Kamlapati Joshi, Ram Singh, Lalit Mohan Petshali, Kanti Swaroop Rawat and Sanjay Joshi, was affirmed. However, their sentence was reduced to period already undergone in jail without disturbing the direction to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Said convicts/appellants, are not revisionists, before this Court. Revisionist before this Court is Kailash Chandra Petshali, who had moved an application before the trial court, for release of the forest produce (resin), which was rejected by the trial court, in respect of which the lower appellate court, vide impugned order dated 28.02.2005, affirmed the rejection of release of the property.
4. The short question, before this Court, raised by the revisionist is that in view of the provision contained in Section 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, the power of seizure or confiscation or release, are with the forest authority and not with the civil court. As such, the trial court as well as the lower appellate court should not have passed orders on merits on the application of the revisionist for release of the property. It is pertinent to mention here that vide Indian Forest (Uttaranchal Amendment) Act, 2001, Section 52A, 52B, 52C, 52D, have been inserted in the Central Act. Section 52A, provides procedure of seizure by the forest authorities and the persons authorised thereunder. Section 52B provides that the appeal against the order of confiscation would lie before the Conservator of Forest. Section 52D of Uttaranchal amendment, provides that in respect of the power conferred under Section 52A, 52B, the jurisdiction of the civil court shall remain barred.
5. In view of the above provision of law, this revision is disposed of with the observation that the revisionist may make an application for redressal of his grievance, before the forest authorities, who shall not be influenced by the impugned order dated 28.02.2005, passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital, whereby an application of the revisionist for release of the property was rejected.