Back
1980 Supreme(Kar) 204
Karnataka High Court
Judges : M.S.Patil
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Appellant
Versus
MOHAMMED PEERAN SAB - Respondent
Criminal Revn. Petn. 357 Of 1980
Decided On : 08/29/1980
Advocates Appeared :
K.H.N.KURANGA, T.V.ANANTHAMURTHY
The central legal point established is the mandatory requirement to produce seized properties before the prescribed authority under Section 71a of the Karnataka Forest Act, and the limited jurisdiction of the Magistrate in ordering the release or disposal of seized property.
Headnote:
Seizure - Release of Vehicle - Interpretation of Legal Provisions
Fact of the Case:
The revision petition was filed against the order rejecting objection for release of a seized vehicle and directing its release. The vehicle was seized for illicit transportation of forest produce, and the Forest Department objected to its release, citing the need for action under Section 71a of the Karnataka Forest Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to order the release of the vehicle as the provisions of Sections 451 and 457, Cr. P. C. were not attracted, and the vehicle should have been produced before the authority prescribed under Section 71a of the Act.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to order release of seized vehicle, interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and applicability of Sections 451 and 457, Cr. P. C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 71a of the Karnataka Forest Act, emphasizing the mandatory requirement to produce seized properties before the prescribed authority. It also clarified that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to order the disposal of the property when no inquiry or trial was pending before the Magistrate.
Final Decision: The order for release of the vehicle was set aside, and the respondent was given the liberty to make an application before the concerned authority of the Forest department for the release of the vehicle.
( 2 ) THE revision is directed against the order dated 16-6-1980 passed by the Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Shimoga whereby he has rejected the objection raised by the Forest department for release of the vehicle bearing No. MYG 35 and directed to release the same.
( 3 ) THE vehicle in question, along with forest produce illicitly being transported, was seized by the Range Forest Officer, Forest Mobile Squad, Shimoga, on 25-8-1980 (sic) for the commission of the Forest Offience under Section 87 of Karnataka Forest Act and a report regarding the seizure sent to the Magistrate. On the application of the respondent made under Section 451, cr. P. C. for the release of the vehicle, the Forest Department objected to such release on the ground that the vehicle was required to be produced before the competent authority for taking action under Section 71a of the Act. The learned Magistrate relying upon the decision of this court in State of Karnataka v. Shivananda (1977-2 Kant LJ 452) : (1978 Cri LJ NOC 44) rejected that objection and proceeded to make an order releasing the vehicle in favour of the respondent. Hence the revision.
( 4 ) IN such cases, as has been pointed out by the Court in Ravindra Patali v. State of Karnataka (1978-2 Kant LJ 462) : (1979 Cri LJ NOC 45) S. 71a of the Act mandatorily provides :
"that whenever seizure is made under the provisions of the Act, the properties including the vehicles, etc. should be produced, by the officer seizing, before the authority prescribed under section 71a of the Act. The officer seizing has no option but to produce the property seized before such authority. "
( 5 ) FURTHER there is no denial of the fact, that no inquiry or trial is pending before Magistrate. Therefore, as held by this court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 164/80 (decided on 20th June 1980) (Reported in (1980) 2 Kant LJ 259) the provisions of Sections 451 and 457, Cr. P. C. are not attracted. The Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to make an order regarding the disposal of the property merely because a report regarding the seizure of the vehicle and the Forest produce has been sent to the Court under S. 62 (3) of the Act.
( 6 ) THE Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make an order regarding the release of the vehicle.
( 7 ) THE order under revision is therefore liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.
( 8 ) THE respondent is at liberty to make an application before authority concerned of the Forest department for the release of the vehicle, if he so chooses.
( 9 ) PETITION allowed.
