Back
1995 JLJ 746
Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.
Laxmi Chand v. State of M.P.
Cr. Revn. No. 27 of 1989; against the order passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Cr. Revn. No. 41 of 1988; Decided on 18.4.1995.
The copy of the proceedings under other documents such as the seizure-memo, the application to compound the offence, the representation of the department filed in the Court by Forest Department, very clearly indicated the prima-facie commission of forest offence and that the department had taken steps and had drawn the necessary proceedings in relation to the seized wood. The documents gave sufficient indication and intimation to the Magistrate that the proceedings for the confiscation of the property were being initiated by the department. The department never sat silent after the seizure of the wood as observed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Revisional Court in the facts and circumstances rightly found that under section 52C of Indian Forest Act, the jurisdiction of the Court was barred for passing the order in relation to the seized property. [Para 8
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 457 -- seizure of property not by the police -- no report of the seizure sent to Magistrate -- forest officer is not police officer -- order of disposal of the property cannot be passed by Magistrate.
In the instant case the application was filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate concerned under section 457. Section 457 empowers the criminal Court to deal with the disposal of the property which has not been produced before the Court. But it has some more pred`requisites, i.e. the seizure by police and its report to the Court. In the instant case, the Magistrate acted under the section as the property was not produced before the Court. But the Magistrate failed to notice that the other limb of the section was not satisfied as the seizure of property was admittedly not done by the police. A forest officer cannot be deemed to be a police officer. The expression ‘Police Officer‘ under the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure as used in this section, should be interpreted strictly to mean only ‘Police Officer‘ and would not include a forest officer. AIR 1966 SC 1746, AIR 1970 SC 940, AIR 1970 SC 1065 and AIR 1974 SC 2136 followed. [Para 12
¼1½ ou vf/kfu;e] 1927 && /kkjk 52x rFkk 52 ¼4½ && ou vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ydM+h vfHkx`ghr && ekeyk U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky fd;k x;k && vfHkxzg.k rFkk dk;Zokgh ds izkjaHk gksus dh lwpuk eftLVªsV rFkk vfHk;qDr dks Hksth xbZ && eftLVªsV dks ydM+h dk O;;u djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA
dk;Zokgh dh izfrfyfi rFkk vU; nLrkost tSls fd vfHkxzg.k&Kkiu vijk/k ds ‘keu djus dk vkosnu] ou foHkkx }kjk U;k;ky; esa Qkby fd;k x;k foHkkx ds vH;kosnu] }kjk li"Vr% nf‘kZr Fkk fd ou vijk/k fd;k x;k rFkk foHkkx }kjk dkjZokbZ dh xbZ rFkk vfHkx`ghr ydM+h ds laca/k esa vko‘;d dk;Zokgh dh xbZA nLrkostksa }kjk eftLVªsV dks i;kZIr min‘kZu rFkk lwpuk Hkh gqbZ fd foHkkx }kjk laifÙk ds vf/kgj.k ds fy, dk;Zokgh izkjaHk dh tk jgh FkhA foHkkx ydM+h ds vfHkxzg.k ds i‘pkr~ dHkh Hkh ‘kkar ugha cSBk tSlk fd fo}ku eftLVªsV }kjk leqfDr dh xbZA rF; rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fo}ku iqujh{k.k U;k;ky; }kjk Bhd&gh ik;k x;k fd Hkkjrh; ou vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 52x ds v/khu] vfHkx`ghr laifÙk ds laca/k esa vkns‘k ikfjr djus ds fy, U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk oftZr FkhA ¿ iSjk 8
¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 457 && laifÙk dk vfHkxzg.k iqfyl }kjk ugha && vfHkxzg.k dh fjiksVZ eftLVªsV dks ugha Hksth xbZ && ou vf/kdkjh iqfyl vf/kdkjh ugha gS && eftLVªsV }kjk laifÙk ds O;;u dk vkns‘k ikfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
bl ekeys esa lacaf/kr eftLVªsV ds le{k ;kph }kjk /kkjk 457 ds v/khu vkosnu Qkby fd;k x;kA /kkjk 457 }kjk nkafMd U;k;ky; dks ,slh laifÙk ds O;;u dh ‘kfDr iznÙk gS tks U;k;ky; ds le{k is‘k ugha dh xbZ gSA fdarq mldh dqN iwokZis{kk,¡ gSa] vFkkZr~ iqfyl }kjk vfHkxzg.k rFkk U;k;ky; dks mldh fjiksVZ bl ekeys esa] eftLVªsV us bl /kkjk ds vkhu dkjZokbZ dh D;ksafd laifÙk U;k;ky; ds le{k is‘k ugha dh xbZA fdarq eftLVªsV ;g ns[kus esa vleFkZ jgs fd /kkjk dk nwljs vax dk lek/kku ugha gqvk Fkk D;ksafd laifÙk dk vfHkxzg.k Lohd`r :i ls iqfyl }kjk ugha fd;k x;k FkkA ou vf/kdkjh dks iqfyl vf/kdkjh ugha ekuk tk ldrkA naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh Ldhe ds v/khu bl /kkjk esa ;Fkk iz;qDr in ^iqfyl vf/kdkjh* dk fuoZpu] vfrfu;efu"B rkSj ij ^iqfyl vf/kdkjh* fd;k tk,xk rFkk mlds varxZr ou vf/kdkjh ugha vk,xkA , vkb vkj 1966 ,l lh 1746] , vkb vkj 1970 ,l lh 940] , vkb vkj 1970 ,l lh 1065 rFkk , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 2136 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 12
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 9.12.88 passed by the lower Court on a revision preferred by the State challenging the delivery of the seized wood to the petitioner under the direction of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lateri.
2. The house of the petitioner was searched on 14.11.86 by the Forest Department Officials and certain quantity of wood on the suspicion of the commission of forest offence was seized. It is contended that as no further action was taken by the Forest Department against the petitioner in relation to the seized wood, the petitioner had moved an application under section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the return of the seized wood to him.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class issued the notice of the application to the department. Thereupon the Forest Department had filed the photostat copies of the documents along with a representation in the Court. Thereafter the evidence was directed to be adduced. None had appeared for the Forest Department and the petitioner alone filed some documents. The Magistrate on 26.7.88 held that although the stated wood was seized by the officials of the Forest Deptt. (not by the police) on 14.11.86, yet the learned Magistrate directed the delivery of the so seized wood to the petitioner. In directing the delivery of the seized wood it was found that a prima facie case had appeared in favour of the petitioner.
4. It was further observed by the Magistrate that after the seizure of wood on 14.11.86, the Forest Department did not proceed against the petitioner nor there was any explanation in that regard. The Court found that the department made no effort also to justify the seizure of the wood.
5. The order of the Magistrate was challenged by the State in the Court of Session by filing the revision and the learned revisional Court from the record held that as under section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act, the learned Magistrate had the intimation of the confiscation proceeding in relation to the seized wood, his jurisdiction to pass any order with regard to the disposal of the property seized by the department was legally barred and, therefore, no order by the Magistrate in that regard could be validly passed. The order of the Magistrate was set aside by the Court by allowing the revision.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the lower Revisional Court, the petitioner has preferred this revision. It is mainly contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the lower Revisional Court wrongly applied the provisions of section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act, as no intimation was given to the Magistrate under section 52 (4) of the Indian Forest Act. It was also contended that as no action against the petitioner was taken by the Forest Department under section 52 (4) of the Act, although it was submitted by the petitioner himself that a challan was filed by the department against the petitioner under sections 32-A, 33 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act read with section 35 of Public Properties Damages (Provincial) Act, 1984; there was no scope for initiating any proceeding under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act against the petitioner with regard to the seizure of the property.
7. The records of the two Courts below are perused. Admittedly, before the Magistrate along with other documents a copy of representation and copy of departmental proceedings were also filed by the Forest Deptt. Out of the documents, the proceedings of the Forest Department give the clear indication that after the seizure of the wood, the stock was brought to the rest house compound and had remained in the possession of the Forest Department. Thereafter the intimation of the proceedings in relation to the seized wood was sent to the petitioner but the notice was refused by him. The petitioner on the same day of the seizure of the wood, i.e. 14.11.86, had filed an application to the Forest Department for compounding the offences, under the Indian Forest Act, but thereaft
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
