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 statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.  

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.3226 of 2023.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner filed a petition in the said Complaint Case instituted by the concerned officer of the Forest Department for release of his truck bearing registration No. UP 21CN 9746. When the matter was taken up on 24.05.2024, it was intimated to the learned S.D.J.M, Giridih that Confiscation Case No.06 of 2024 has been initiated in respect of the said truck as well as the goods loaded thereon. Considering the same, the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the said vehicle in his favour.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Paul vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in MANU/JH/1098/2022 and submits that therein the co-ordinate Bench taking into consideration the facts of that case to the effect that the confiscation proceeding has already been completed and the order has been passed, it was of the opinion that under Section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Bihar Amendment, the petitioner of that case should exhaust all the forums and get relief from those forums and dismissed the revision application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sarju Prasad vs. State of Jharkhand reported in MANU/JH/1906/2015 wherein the co-ordinate Bench ordered that the petitioner of that case may appear before the confiscation authority and file his show-cause and a petition for release of the vehicle but in the same paragraph went on to order that the order of release of vehicle will be the subject to final decision of the confiscation case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of M.P. vs. Madhukhar Rao reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 367 and submits that therein in paragraph-17, it has been observed that in respect of Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 that the same does not in any way affect the Magistrate’s power to make an order of interim release of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Code of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that the driver of the petitioner, in order to make illegal gain for himself, loaded wood on truck without giving any intimation to the petitioner. It is next submitted that upon filing of the petition for release of the truck, a report was called for by the court concerned and thereafter a confiscation proceeding has been initiated and the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih failed to take into consideration the said facts, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

7. Learned Spl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Divisional Forest Officer & Another vs. G. V. Sudhakar Rao & Others reported in (1985) 4 SCC 573 and submits that the confiscation proceeding and criminal case are two separate and distinct proceedings. So, merely because there was an acquittal of the accused in a trial by the Magistrat