Point of Law : Section 15 gives independent power to the authority concerned, but confiscation of the article as mentioned there under, even before the guilt is completely established.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Legality, propriety and correctness of Order dated 30.04.2022, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biswanath Chariali, is put to challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, the learned Court below has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner namely, Md. Offijol Hoque, seeking custody of one seized Tractors, bearing Registration No. AS-12-BC-2124, being the registered owner of the same.

3. The factual background leading to the filing of this present Revision Petition is briefly stated as under:

“On 23.03.2022, at about 10.30 A.M. the Forest Range Officer, Crime Investigation Range, Biswanath Chariali received information about killing of one wild Asiatic Buffalo, which was coming out of the 6th Addition area, in search of food and was killed by some people of Balidubi area. Based on said information, he conducted search operation with local police in Balidubi area, adjoining the 6th Addition area of Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve and during the search operation, fresh meat and full skin of the wild Asiatic Buffalo was recovered from the house of one Md. Hazarat Ali, who is the brother of one Rahmat Ali of Balidubi Village, and seized the same in presence of witnesses. Thereafter on 13.04.2022, the Forest Range Officer, Crime Investigation Range, Biswanath Chariali seized the tractor from the petitioner’s house bearing Registration No. AS-12-BC-2124, preparing Seizure List. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed one petition before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Biswanath Chariali, seeking custody of the seized Tractor bearing Registration No. AS-12-BC-2124. But, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, after perusing the case record and also perusing the report of the I.O. has rejected the petition.”

4. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Court below on the ground that:

(1) The learned court has committed error both in law and in facts by holding that the Zimma petition cannot be allowed as the seized vehicle will be required for the purpose of investigation.

(2) The learned court below has failed to appreciate that the vehicle was seized on 13.04.2022 and the investigating agency got sufficient time for investigation and that unless the vehicle in question is released in the custody of the petitioner, the same would be damaged completely and thereby the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss.

5. Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel for the Forest Department.

6. Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after seizure of the vehicle on 13.04.2022, the same has been lying unattended in the P.S. Campus and exposing to the sun and rain, and its value is diminishing day by day. Mr. N. Uddin further submits that the petitioner has been seeking only interim custody of the Tractor and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, the petitioner is entitled to the same and that he will produce the same before the Court as and when necessary. Mr. Uddin, therefore, contended to allow the petition.

7. On the other hand, Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the Authorized Officer has already started confiscation proceeding of the seized Tractor and informed him about the same vide Letter No. B/WBC/OFFENCE/935-37, dated 11.05.2022, and notice has been issued to the petitioner asking him to show-cause as to why the seized vehicle should not be confiscated to the State within seven days. Mr. Gogoi further submits that neither the learned Court below nor this Court can release the seized v