JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr T H Hazarika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr D Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest.

2. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Sections 401/397 of CrPC, 1973, against the order dated 28.09.2022, passed by the learned Additional CJM, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in CR(Forest) Case No. 13/2022, under Sections 34/35/40/41/49 (i) and 60 (i) of Assam Forest Regulations, 1891, whereby the learned Additional CJM, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, has rejected the petition of the petitioner/revisionist filed under Section 451 of CrPC, for zimma/custody of a truck.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 07.08.2022, at around 11:00 pm at night, while the Forest Officer, the informant was going towards Pathalipar at Dhakuakhana, along with some other forest officials, while patrolling at Gogamukh Chariali, they had noticed one truck was coming from NHPC side and in the late night at around 01:00 clock they stopped the truck at Gogamukh Chariali NHPC Road and interrogated the driver, as to what was brought in the vehicle. The driver replied that there were timbers in the truck, bearing Registration AS-23CC-4944. The informant asked for the documents of the timber from the driver, but he failed to show any documents. After inspecting the vehicle, the informant found timbers and while asking as to from where the timbers were brought, then the driver and the handyman stated that the timbers were brought from Arunachal Pradesh, without any documents obtained from the Forest Department.

4. It is also alleged that they have brought the loaded timbers in the vehicle as per direction of the vehicle owner. Accordingly, the timbers and the vehicle were seized and the driver and the handyman were arrested. Thereafter, a case was registered against the said accused persons for committing offences under Sections 34/35/40/41/49 (i) and 60 (i) of Assam Forest Regulations, 1891. Subsequently, a petition was filed before the learned Additional CJM, Lakhimpur, praying for taking custody of the seized vehicle, AS-23CC-4944 and the prayer of the petitioner was rejected with an observation that as the confiscation proceeding of the seized vehicle has been initiated, the zimma prayer of the petitioner could not be considered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing No. AS-23CC-4944. The petitioner has duly authorized Md Sowkhatul Islam Bora for filing the instant revision petition for taking custody of the vehicle, which was seized in connection with CR (Forest) Case No. 13/2022. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged vehicle has not been confiscated but the process has been initiated.

6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seized vehicle is under finance from TATA Motors Finance Limited (formerly, known as Sheba Properties Limited) and as the vehicle was seized and kept in the custody of the Forest officer, therefore, the petitioner is facing heavy loss as the petitioner has to pay monthly installments against the said seized vehicle to the Financer Company. Hence, the zimma of the said vehicle be given to the petitioner.

7. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following case-law:-

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat; (2002) 10 SCC 283.

8. Learned counsel also pointed out paragraphs 16 and 17 of the aforesaid case, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows :-

“16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass a