Back
2012(2) JLJ 153
Sujoy Paul, J.
Ramniwas v. Game Range Chambal Sanctuary
Miscellaneous Criminal Cases No.213 of 2010, 6856 of 2010,
18 of 2012 and 779 of 2012; Decided on 3.2.2012.
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.451 and 457 -- Forest Act, 1927 (M.P. Amendment -- Ss.52(4) and 52C -- during patrolling -- tractor-trolley found laden with sand, surface soil, a forest produce in prohibited area -- seized by forest officials -- intimation of seizure sent to Magistrate by forest officials -- application for releasing vehicle under sections 451 and 457 of CrPC -- vehicle cannot be released -- jurisdiction of Magistrate is ousted.
The basic question is whether after getting an information under section 52(4) of the 1927 Act the Magistrate will have jurisdiction to release the vehicle?
Held : In fact, on more than one occasion various Benches of this Court have held that once such an intimation is given to the Magistrate, as per the bar created under section 52C of 1927 Act, the Magistrate‘s jurisdiction for providing the vehicle on interim custody stands ousted.
Thus, in view of bar created in section 52C of the 1927 Act, the vehicle cannot be released by the Magistrate after getting the intimation of seizure under section 52 of the 1927 Act. 1987 Cri.LJ 368, 1992 Cri.LJ 1764 and 2002(3) MPLJ 245 relied on. (2004)4 SCC 159 followed. 2000(1) MPLJ 289 distinguished.
[Paras 15 & 16 to 19
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- scope of -- vehicle seized by forest officials -- intimation of seizure sent to Magistrate by forest officials -- application for releasing the vehicle -- jurisdiction of Magistrate ousted -- jurisdiction for releasing vehicle under section 482 of CrPC is also ousted. (2000)4 SCC 159 followed. [Paras 20 to 24
(4) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- applicability of -- petition under section 482 of CrPC -- provisions of Art.226 not attracted. [Para 26
(5) Forest Act, 1927 (M.P. Amendment) -- S.55(1) -- applicability of -- matter not regarding validity of confiscation proceedings -- lis about jurisdiction of Magistrate and revisional Court to release vehicle -- for that special provisions are made in sections 52A, 52B and 52C -- provisions of section 55(1) not attracted. [Paras 26 & 27
¼1½ ou vf/kfu;e] 1927 ¼e-iz- la‘kks/ku½ & /kkjk 52¼4½ rFkk 52x & naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 451 rFkk 457 & x‘r ds nkSjku & VsªDVj&VªkWyh fu"ksf/kr {ks= esa jsr] feV~Vh ls ynk gqvk] ,d ou mit esa ik;k x;k & ou vf/kdkfj;ksa )kjk tCr fd;k x;k & ou vf/kdkfj;ksa )kjk tCrh dh lwpuk eftLVªsV dks Hkssth xbZ & okgu NksM+us ds fy, na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 451 rFkk 457 ds v/khu vkosnu & okgu NksM+k ugha tk ldrk & eftLVªsV vf/kdkfjrk ls oafpr gS A ¼iSjk 12 ¼2½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 451 rFkk 457 & ou vf/kfu;e] 1927 ¼e-iz- la‘kks/ku½ & /kkjk 52¼4½ rFkk 52x & x‘r ds nkSjku & VªsDVj&VªkWyh fu"ksf/kr {ks= esa jsr] feV~Vh ls ynk gqvk] ,d ou mit esa ik;k x;k & ou vf/kdkfj;ksa )kjk tCr fd;k x;k & ou vf/kdkfj;ksa )kjk tCrh dh lwpuk eftLVsªV dks Hksth xbZ & okgu NksM+us ds fy, na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 451 rFkk 457 ds v/khu vkosnu & okgu NksM+k ugha tk ldrk & eftLVsªV vf/kdkfjrk ls oafpr gS A ewy iz‘u ;g gS fd D;k 1927 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 52¼4½ ds v/khu lwpuk izkIr djus ds i‘pkr~ eftLVsªV dks okgu NksM+us dh vf/kdkfjrk gksxh \ ¼iSjk 12 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % oLrqr% vusd voljksa ij bl U;k;ky; dh fofHkUu U;k;ihBksa us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd tc dHkh eftLVªsV dks ,slh lwpuk nh tkrh gS] 1927 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 52x ds v/khu l`ftr otZu ds vuqlkj] eftLVsªV varfje vfHkj{kk esa okgu fnykus dh vf/kdkfjrk ls oafpr gS A bl izdkj 1927 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 52x esa l`ftr otZu ds n`f"Vdks.k ls] 1927 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 52 ds v/khu tCr djus dh lwpuk izkIr gksus ds i‘pkr~ eftLVªsV )kjk okgu NksM+k ugha tk ldrk A 1987 lhvkj ,y ts 368] 1992 lhvkj ,y ts 1764 rFkk 2002¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 245 voyafcr A ¼2004½4 ,l lh lh 159 vuqlfjr A 2000¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 289 izHksfnr A ¼iSjk 15 rFkk 16 ls 19 ¼3½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & dh O;kfIr & ou vf/kdkfj;ksa )kjk okgu tCr fd;k x;k & ou vf/kdkfj;ksa )kjk tCrh dh lwpuk eftLVªsV dks Hksth xbZ & okgu NksM+us ds fy, vkosnu & eftLVªsV dh vf/kdkfjrk oafpr gS & naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu Hkh okgu NksM+us dh vf/kdkfjrk oafpr gS A ¼iSjk 20 ls 24 ¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 & dk ykxw gksuk & na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu ;kfpdk & vuq- 226 ds mica/k vkdf"kZr ugha A ¼iSjk 26 ¼5½ ou vf/kfu;e] 1927 ¼e-iz- la‘kks/ku½ & /kkjk 55¼1½ & dk ykxw gksuk & ekeyk vf/kgj.k dh dk;Zokfg;ksa dh fof/kekU;rk ds laca/k esa ugha & okn eftLVªsV rFkk iqujh{k.k U;k;ky; )kjk okgu NksM+us dh vf/kdkfjrk ds fo"k; esa & blds fy, /kkjk 52d] 52[k rFkk 52x esa fo‘ks"k mica/k cuk, x, gS & /kkjk 55¼1½ ds mica/k ykxw ugha gksrs A ¼iSjk 26 rFkk 27
1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these similar matters, with the consent of parties the matters were analogously heard and decided by this common judgment.
2. The facts are taken from Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.213/2012.
On 14.3.2011 a tractor-trolley of the petitioner was seized by forest officials under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1927 Act’). As per the story of prosecution, the forest officials were patrolling in the Chambal Sanctuary to check illegal mining of surface soil, sand. During the said patrolling, petitioner’s tractor-trolley was found laden with sand, surface soil, a forest produce in the prohibited area. Accordingly, the vehicle was seized and a forest criminal case was registered against the petitioner under 1927 Act. The ‘forest produce’ is defined in section 4 of the 1927 Act. It is not in dispute between the parties that forest officials sent an intimation of aforesaid seizure to the Magistrate as per section 52 of 1927 Act (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) and it is also not in dispute that such an information was duly received by the concerned Magistrate.
3. The petitioner filed an application under section 451 read with section 457 of CrPC before the Magistrate for releasing his vehicle. The learned Magistrate by order dated 8.4.2011 rejected the said application on the ground that the information of seizure of said tractor-trolley is already received by the Magistrate and, therefore, under the provisions of the Forest Act, the jurisdiction of Magistrate is ousted. At this stage, the petitioner filed a revision under section 397 CrPC before the Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, which was registered as Case No.63/2011. The said Court by order dated 16.6.2011 rejected the revision on the ground that once information is given under section 52 of the 1927 Act by the forest officials to the Magistrate, the jurisdiction of Magistrate is ousted. Thus, no fault was found in the order of the Magistrate and revision was rejected.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these matters submitted that in view of the recent judgment of this Court in Miscellaneous Case No.7937/2008 (Dilip v. State of Madhya Pradesh), the vehicle should have been released and the Courts below had jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 451 read with section 457 of CrPC.
5. Shri V.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed heavy reliance on (2003)2 SCC (Cri.) 1943 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat), which was recently followed in (2010)3 SCC (Cri.) 226 (General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh), to submit that if vehicle is unnecessarily kept in the police station or with the forest department, no useful purpose would be served. The vehicle would be damaged because it is exposed to sun and rain and in that eventuality in view of Sunderbhai’s case (supra), the vehicle can very well be released. He also placed reliance on (2007)3 SCC (Cri.) 353 (State of U.P. v. Lalloo Singh), and (2003)2 SCC (Cri.) 1085 (State of Karnataka v. K.A. Kunchindammed). By placing reliance on (2002)1 SCC (Cri.) 889 (Moti Lal v. Central Bureau of Investigation), Shri Sharma submits that both the Courts below have committed an error of law in not releasing the vehicle.
6. Shri V.D. Sharma placed heavy reliance on section 55(1) of the 1927 Act (Madhya Pradesh Amendment). On the basis of the provision, it is submitted that confiscation is possible only upon conviction. As on date, there is no conviction and, therefore, in absence of any conviction neither seizure nor confiscation is permissible. He further submits that as per the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1972 Act’), very stringent provisions are made with regard to forest offences and, therefore, the authorities should not have applied the provisions of the 1927 Act.
7. Shri Satyendra Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Miscella
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
