Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
State Of A.P. - Appellant
Versus
P.K.Mahammad - Respondent
Decided On : 12-08-77
ANDHRA PRADESH FOREST ACT - SEIZURE OF PROPERTY - JURISDICTION OF COURTS - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT: 1. Where a property seized under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act is produced before the Authorised Officer as per the amended provisions of Section 44 of the Act, the Court has no power to pass orders of disposal with respect to such seized property. 2. A writ of certiorari is available to correct errors of jurisdiction of inferior Courts, including Criminal Courts, where they exceed their jurisdiction. 3. The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, including cases where a Criminal Court has exceeded its jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
A motor car was seized while smuggling sandalwood and produced before the Divisional Forest Officer. The accused were produced before the Munsif Magistrate for remand and proceedings under Section 44(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act. The owner of the car filed a petition for its release, which was allowed by the Magistrate. The Forest Department filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, who upheld the Magistrate's order. The Forest Department then filed a writ petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to release the car since it was not produced before him but before the Authorised Officer, who was seized of the matter. The Court also held that a writ of certiorari was available to correct the error of jurisdiction committed by the Magistrate.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to release the car which was not produced before him but before the Authorised Officer? 2. Whether a writ of certiorari is available against a Criminal Court where it exceeds its jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to release the car since the amended provisions of Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act gave the Authorised Officer the discretion to produce the seized property either before the Court or before himself, and the Authorised Officer in this case had chosen to produce the car before himself. 2. The Court held that a writ of certiorari is available to correct errors of jurisdiction of inferior Courts, including Criminal Courts, where they exceed their jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge releasing the car.
( 1 ) THE Forest Range Officer, Mahaboobnagar seized a motor car bearing MYW No. 7005 while it was smuggling sandal wood and produced the same before the Divisional Forest Officer, Mahaboobnagar for taking proceedings under Section 44 (2-A) of the Andhra pradesh Forest Act. The accused were, however, produced before the Munsif Magistrate for remand and for being proceeded against under Section 44 (2) of the Act.
( 2 ) THE 1st respondent herein, claiming to be the owner of the motor car, filed M. P. No, 532 of 1977 before the Court of Munsif magistrate for release of the car. The learned Magistrate ordered the release of the car on 10-8-1977 on furnishing a bond for Rs, 10. 000/- with two sureties. Against the said order, the Forest Department filed a Criminal R. C. No. 16 of 1977 before the learned Sessions Judge. Mahaboobnagar contending that since the car was not produced before the Court, which was indeed produced before the Divisional Forest Officer, Mahaboobnagar an authority of competent jurisdiction, the learned Magistrate had no power to pass any orders of release with respect to the said car. The learned Sessions judge, however, over-ruled the said contention, mainly, with reference to Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, this Writ Petition. The prayer is to quash the orders of the learned magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar by issuing a writ of Certiorari.
( 3 ) IT is stated by the learned Government Pleader that they have filed this petition as a test case since the Forest Department is finding that even where the property is not produced before the Court, but only before the Forest Officer as contemplated in Section 44 (2-A) of the Act, the Courts have been releasing the said property. It is contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to do so. On the other hand, Sri D. K. S. Reddy, the. learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, contended that once the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the property connected with the said offence and by virtue cf his powers under Section 457 Crl. P. C. , he is entitled to pass appropriate orders for release, if he finds the same necessary. Reliance is also placed upon Section 451 Crl. P. C. and Sections 53 and 57 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest act.
( 4 ) BEFORE the amending Act 17 of 1976 was introduced, Sec. tion 44 of the Act provided that-where a property has been seized by an authorised Officer, or Police Officer, under the reasonable belief that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, a report shall be made to the Magistrate of such seizure. (Where however, the property seized was believed to be the property of the Centra! or state Government and the offender was not known, it was sufficient if a report of the circumstances of seizure was made to the Divisional forest Officer ). The seized property was liable to be produced before lhe Magistrate as and when required by the Court. On receipt of a report of seizure, the Magistrate was to take measures for holding the trial and for disposal of the property according to law, except where the offence was compounded. Section 45 provided for the confiscation of the seized property by the Court where a person was convicted, and Secs. 46 and 47 provided for passing of orders by the Court with respect to disposal of seized property, in other cases. By Amending Act 17 of 1976, the provisions in chapter VII were extensively amended. Sub-section (2) which provided for making a report of seizure, to the Magistrate soon after such seizure, was amended and the amended sub-section (2) now provides that the Officer seizing the property shall "wihout any unreasonable delay either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) or make a report of such seizur
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.