Biresh Kumar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others - Court Judgment

1. This revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Cr.PC being aggrieved by order dated 5-8-2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 451/457 of the Cr.PC for releasing the vehicle on Supurdginama has been dismissed.

2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this revision are that the applicant is a farmer and owner of Tata-407 vehicle bearing No. MP 53-GA-2054. He sent his driver with vehicle to purchase Sand for his personal use (for construction of his house). The driver was having all valid documents of vehicle and also having transit pass to transport the Sand. Despite that, the prosecution has registered an offence as Forest Offence Case No. 471/20 on 23-6-2013 against the driver for the offence punishable under Sections 27, 29, 39 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act alleging that he was unauthorisedly transporting the Sand from the protected area, i.e., Son Ghariya Wild Life Sanctuary, Sidhi. The vehicle was seized by the Police and Officer of Forest Department. Since the applicant was the registered owner of the vehicle, he filed an application under Section 451/457 of the Cr.PC before Chief Judicial magistrate, Sidhi, which was dismissed with the observation that confiscation proceedings under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 have been initiated by the Competent Authority, therefore, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to release the aforesaid vehicle on Supurdginama, hence this revision.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Trial Court has committed illegality in dismissing the application filed by the applicant. The seized property cannot be said to be the property of State until and unless there is trial and finding reached by the Competent Court that the property was used for committing an offence under Wild Life (Protection) Act, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the aforesaid vehicle be ordered to be released on Supurdginama. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a decision of Full Bench of this Court in Madhukar Rao s/o Malik Rao Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2000 (1) MPLJ 289. Counsel has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered vide order dated 13-11-2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No.11367/2013, Yagyaraj Singh Vs. State of M.P.; order dated 11-2-2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 527/2014, Smt. Phoolkali Sahu Vs. State of M.P. and another and Dilip s/o Ramvilas Meena Vs. State of M.P., 2012 (1) MPLJ 137.

4. Learned Counsel for the State has supported the impugned order and submitted that if the offence has been registered under Indian Forest Act along with the offence under Wild Life (Protection) Act, and if the Magistrate, having jurisdiction to try the offences, has received the intimation under Section 52 (4) of the Indian Forest Act regarding initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the property, then the concerning Magistrate has no jurisdiction to release the disputed property on Supurdginama. In the instant case, Chief Judicial Magistrate has received the information under Section 52(4) of the Indian Forest Act regarding initiation of proceedings for confiscation, therefore, he has rightly dismissed the application filed by the applicant. Thus, no interference is called for in this revision and this revision is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and gone through the impugned order and other material on record. It reveals from the impugned order that accused Pinku Kewat has been prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 27, 29, 39, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and under Sections 2, 41, 52 of the Indian Forest Act. It further reveals from the impugned order that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi had already received an information under Section 52(4) of the Indian Forest Act in regard to the fact that the confiscation proceedings have been initiated in connection with seized vehicle. In these circumstances, the legal provision regarding bar of jurisdiction of Courts has to be examined. There is specific bar of jurisdiction of Courts under Section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which reads thus:-

52-C. Bar of jurisdiction of Courts etc., In certain circumstances.- (1) On receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of Section 52 about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property which is subject matter of confiscation, has been made, no Court, Tribunal or Authority (other than the authorized officer). Appellate Authority and Revision Authority referred to in Sections 52, 52-A and 52-B shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated 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 on receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of Section 52 by one of the Court of Magistrates having such jurisdiction shall be construed to be receipt of intimation under that provision by all the Court and the bar to exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such Courts.

(2) Nothing to sub-section (1) shall affect the power saved under Section 61.

6. The facts of the case of Madhukar Rao (supra), are totally different than the instant case. in that case, the offences were registered under Wild Life Protection Act. In that case, the main question for consideration was that whether withdrawal of power of interim relief conferred on authorities under the Act (Wild Life Protection Act) can be construed as taking away such power of Magistrate as Criminal Court competent to try the offences and to impose punishment or acquit the accused of the charge. The Full bench of this Court after consideration of number of authorities held that the property seized under Section 52 of the Forest Act from the alleged offender cannot be the property of the State unless there is trial and finding reached by the Competent Court that the property seized was used for committing the offence. It has been further held that any property including vehicle seized on accusation or suspicion of commission of an offence under the Act can, on relevant grounds and circumstances, be released by the Magistrate pending trial in accordance with Section 50(4) read with Section 451 of the Cr.PC. Similar is the situation in the case of Smt. Phoolkali Sahu (supra).

7. In the aforesaid cases, the offences were not registered under the Indian Forest Act. But, in the instant case, the property has been seized not only under Wild Life (Protection) Act, but also under Indian Forest Act and there is a specific bar of jurisdiction of the Courts under Section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act as mentioned hereinabove. Since as per impugned order, the information with respect to initiation of proceedings for confiscation was already received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to release the disputed vehicle on Supurdginama to the applicant.8. So far as the order passed by this Court on 13-11-2013 in M.Cr.C. No. 11367/2013, Yagyaraj Singh Vs. State of M.P., is concerned, in that case, it was not brought to the notice of this Court that any information has been received by the Chief Judicial magistrate in regard to initiation of proceedings for confiscation in connection with the disputed property by the Competent Authority. Thus, the aforesaid order has no bearing with the facts of the instant case.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the application filed by the applicant.

10. Consequently, this revision being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.