Back
2001 Supreme(MP) 577
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. S. SARAF
SHEIKH TAUSIF - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
M. CRI. C. 4095 Of 2001
Decided On : 09/20/2001
A.Choudhary, S.L.Kochar
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 457 -- Forest Act, 1927 -- Ss. 2 (4)(iii), 52 and 52-C (as amended in M.P.) -- Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 -- S. 2 (36) and (37) -- fish is not a ‘wild animal‘ but fails under ‘wild life‘ -- cannot be included in forest produce -- confiscation of jeep in connection with fishing in National Park cannot be construed to be u/s 52 of Forest Act -- jurisdiction of Court u/s 52-C of the Act not barred. [Para 8
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 457 -- Wild Life (Protection) Act. 1972 -- Ss. 39 (1)(d), 29, 35 (6) and 51 -- offence alleged to be u/ss. 29, 35 (6) and 51 -- fish being wild life, and not wild animal, provisions of S. 39 are attracted -- seizure of jeep can be construed to be u/s 39 (1)(d) -- trial Court has jurisdiction to release vehicle on supurdnama. 2000 (1) JLJ 304 (FB) relied on. [Para 10
¼1½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 457&& ou vf/kfu;e] 1927 && /kkjk 2 ¼4½ (iii), 52 rFkk 52&x ¼e/; izns‘k esa ;Fkk la‘kksf/kr½ && oU; izk.kh ¼laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1972 && /kkjk 2 ¼36½ rFkk ¼37½ && eNyh ^oU; i‘kq* ugha fdarq ^oU; izk.kh* ds varxZr vkrh gS && ou mit esa varfoZ"V ugha dh tk ldrh && jk"Vªh; m|ku esa eNyh dk f‘kdkj djus ds laca/k esa thi ds vfHkxzg.k dk vFkkZUo;u ou vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 52 ds v/khu gksuk ugha fd;k tk ldrk && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk ds 52&x ds v/khu U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk oftZr ugha gSA
¼2½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 457 && oU; izk.kh ¼laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1972 && /kkjk 39 ¼1½ ¼?k½] 29] 35¼6½ rFkk 51 && vijk/k /kkjk 29] 35¼6½ rFkk 51 ds v/khu gksuk vfHkdfFkr && eNyh oU; izk.kh gksus vkSj oU; i‘kq ugha gksus ds dkj.k /kkjk 39 ds mica/k vkdf"kZr gksrs && thi ds vfHkxzg.k dk vFkkUo;u /kkjk 39 ds mica/k vkdf"kZr gksrs && thi ds vfHkxzg.k dk vFkkZUo;u /kkjk 39 ¼1½ ¼?k½ ds v/khu gksuk fd;k tk ldrk gS && fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks lqiqnZukek ij ;ku fueqZDr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk gSA 2001 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 304 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA
¼iSjk 10½
( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been directed against the order dated 4-7-2001 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No. 82/2001 affirming the order dated 21-5-2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saunsar District Chhindwara in P. O. R. No. 8891/2001 rejecting an application filed under Section 457, Cr. P. C. for the release of the vehicle on Supardnama.
( 2 ) A criminal case for offence under Sections 2, 9, 27, 29, 35 (6), 43 (3), 46 (A), 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and Sections 26 and 52 of The Indian Forest Act has been registered against Abdul Waheed Ansari and Babulal on the allegations that they were fishing in the reservoir of Pench National Park, Chhindwara. The fish so collected were being transported in the Jeep No. MP-28-C/ 0195 which was seized. It is alleged that the seized vehicle belongs to the petitioner. He, therefore, filed an application for release of the said vehicle on Supurdnama under Section 457, Cr. P. C. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saunsar by order dated 21-5-2001 rejected the application on the ground that under the provisions of Section 52-C of (The Indian) Forest Act as amended by M. P. Act No. 25 of 1983, he has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle on Supurdnama as the Forest Officer has started proceedings for its confiscation under Section 52 of [the Indian] Forest Act as amended by the M. P. Act in its application to the State of Madhya Pradesh. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saunsar, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Court of Session. The learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara by the imugned order, affirming the above order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred the present petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
( 3 ) IT has been contended by Shri S. L. Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of [the Indian] Forest Act as amended by the M. P. Act (for short the 'forest Act') are not applicable in the present case as the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short the 'act of 1972') are applicable because the alleged fishing was performed within the area of Pench National Park. He has, further, contended that no offence under Sections 26 and 52 of the Forest Act is made out in the present case and therefore, the provisions of Section 52 of the Forest Act do not attract. On the other hand Shri Anurag Choudhary, learned Government Advocate for the State has urged that the provisions of the Forest Act are equally applicable and therefore the impugned order is not liable to be quashed.
( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant provisions of the 'forest Act' and the 'act of 1972'. The relevant provisions of the 'forest Act' are as under :-"2. Interpretation clause.- xxx xxx xxx (1) to (3) xxx xxx xxx xxx (4) "forest produce" includes - xxx xxx xxx xxx (iii) wild animals and skins, tusks, borns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey, and wax, and all other parts of produce of animals, and""26. Acts prohibited in such forest.- (1) Any person who - xxx xxx xxx xxx (i) in contravention of any rules made in this behalf of by the [state Government] hunts, shoots, fishes, poisons water or sets traps or snares; or (j) in any area in which the Elephants' Preservation Act, 1879, is not in force kills or catches elephants in contravention of any rules so made, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which, may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both, in additionto such compensation for damage done to the forest as the convicting Court may direct to be paid. ""section 52 as amended by M. P. Act - Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure the
