SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 445

THE HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Robin Phukan, J.
The State Of Assam, Rep. By The Special Public Prosecutor, Wildlife And Forest Assam. - Appellant
Vs.
Dangman Jugli S/o Sri Limton Jugli - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 900 of 2023
Decided On : 02-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D. Gogoi, Special P.P., Forest Dept. Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Roy, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.K. Chakraborty.

Once confiscation proceeding has started, the criminal courts have no jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle.

Headnote:

Confiscation Proceeding - Forest Offence - Assam Forest Regulation, Section 49 - Summary: The court discussed the initiation of confiscation proceeding under Section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation and highlighted that once confiscation proceeding has started, the criminal courts have no jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle. The court referred to various judicial pronouncements to support this legal principle and ultimately set aside the impugned order directing the release of the seized vehicle.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the order directing the release of a seized vehicle in a forest offence case, arguing that once confiscation proceeding started, the court had no jurisdiction to release the vehicle. The respondent claimed innocence and ownership of the vehicle.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the confiscation proceeding had been initiated by the Divisional Forest Officer, and as per legal principles, the court had no jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle. The court set aside the impugned order and dismissed the interlocutory application.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle in a forest offence case once confiscation proceeding had been initiated.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once confiscation proceeding has started, the criminal courts have no jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle, citing various judicial pronouncements in support of this legal principle.

Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal petition, set aside the impugned order, and dismissed the interlocutory application. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

 

Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. In this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have challenged the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Margherita, in CR Case No. 26/2022, arising out of Offence Report No. LP/16 of 2022-23.

3. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned order, dated 11.04.2023, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Margherita, in CR Case No. 26/2022, arising out of Offence Report No. LP/16 of 2022-23, had directed the petitioner No.2 to release one JCB 3DX SUPER, bearing Registration No. AR01 M 7927, in the custody of the respondent.

4. Further, it is to be noted here that vide order dated 28.08.2023, this court, at the stage of motion, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, was pleased to grant stay of the impugned order, dated 11.04.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Margherita. Thereafter, the respondent has preferred one interlocutory application, being I.A.(Criminal) No.1088/2023 for vacation/modification/alteration of the order of this court dated 28.08.2023.

5. And by this common judgment and order, it is proposed to dispose of both the petitions together.

6. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:-

 

    “On 13.12.2022, the Staffs of Lekhapani Forest Range have apprehended one Robin Rai, inside the Tirap Reserve Forest with one JCB 3DX SUPER, bearing Registration No. AR01M7927, while the same was being used for smuggling timbers. Thereafter investigation was carried out and the accused was arrested and forwarded to jaiol hazoot and seized the JCB with timbers and ultimately the investigation has culminated in submission of Offence Report, being Offence Report No. LP/16 of 2022-23, against the accused Kabir Rai to stand trial in the court under section 24/25/(a)/25(d)/25(e)/25(f)/33/34/35 read with section 40 and 41 of Assam Forest Regulation, which resulted in registration of CR Case No. 26/2022. Then having been satisfied with commission of a forest offence, the Divisional Forest Officer-cum Authorised Officer, Digboi had passed an order for initiation of confiscation proceeding in respect of seized items. Thereafter, the respondent has preferred an application under section 457 Cr.P.C. before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Margherita seeking custody of the seized JCB, and then hearing learned Advocates of both sides the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class has dismissed the same. Thereafter, the respondent had preferred one Criminal Revision Petition, being Criminal Revision Petition No. 6(1)/2023, before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC-I), Margherita and then the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, vide order dated 24.03.2023, directed the respondent to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Margherita and further directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of such a petition, in the event of filing of such petition for zimma, in accordance with law. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 11.04.2023, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Margherita, had directed the petitioner No.2 to release one JCB 3DX SUPER, bearing Registration No. AR01 M 7927, in the custody of the respondent on his executing a bond, equivalent to market price of the JCB, with the condition that he shall not sell, transfer or dispose of the vehicle until the conclusion of the trial.”

7. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this court challenging the correctness of the impugned order on the ground that the learned court below has failed to consider the fact that the Divisional Forest Officer-cum- Authorised Officer has already initiated the confiscation proceeding of the seized JCB and once the confiscation proceeding sta

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top