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
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:-
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
State of Karnataka Vs. K. Krishnan
State of West Bengal & Ors. Sujit Kumar Rana
Once confiscation proceeding has started, the criminal courts have no jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle.
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.
Confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act bar any court from intervening in property release prior to completion of proceedings, affirming jurisdiction is constrained under specific statut....
Point of Law – Under the Act, 1967 only an authorised officer or the Divisional Forest Officer under Section 51 of the Act, 1967 can temporarily release any property used to commit an offence.
Point of Law : 18. Vehicle seized for committing forest offence was not normally to be released to party till culmination of all proceedings in respect of forest offence as particular approach in mat....
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.