The judgment establishes the principle that when confiscation proceedings are initiated under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, the Court lacks jurisdiction to release the seized property under Section 451/457 of the Cr.P.C.

Judgment:

G.S. Solanki, J.

1. This revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 5-8-2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 451/457 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing the vehicle on Supurdginama has been dismissed. The facts, in short, giving rise to this revision are that the applicant is a farmer and owner of Tata-407 vehicle bearing No. M.P. 53-GA-2054. He sent his driver with vehicle to purchase Sand for his personal use (for construction of his house). The driver was having all valid documents of vehicle and also having transit pass to transport the Sand. Despite that, the prosecution has registered an offence as Forest Offence Case No. 471/20 on 23-6-2013 against the driver for the offence punishable under Sections 27, 29, 39 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act alleging that he was unauthorisedly transporting the Sand from the protected area, i.e., Son Ghariya Wild Life Sanctuary, Sidhi. The vehicle was seized by the Police and Officer of Forest Department. Since the applicant was the registered owner of the vehicle, he filed an application under Section 451/457 of the Cr.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi, which was dismissed with the observation that confiscation proceedings under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 have been initiated by the Competent Authority, therefore, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to release the aforesaid vehicle on Supurdginama, hence this revision.

2. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Trial Court has committed illegality in dismissing the application filed by the applicant. The seized property cannot be said to be the property of State until and unless there is trial and finding reached by the Competent Court that the property was used for committing an offence under Wild Life (Protection) Act, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the aforesaid vehicle be ordered to be released on Supurdginama. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a decision of Full Bench of this Court in Madhukar Rao s/o. Malik Rao Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2000 (1) MPLJ 289. Counsel has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered vide order dated 13-11-2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 11367/2013, Yagyaraj Singh Vs. State of M.P.; order dated 11-2-2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 527/2014, Smt. Phoolkali Sahu Vs. State of M.P. and another and Dilip S/o. Ramvilas Meena Vs. State of M.P., 2012 (1) MPLJ 137.

3. Learned Counsel for the State has supported the impugned order and submitted that if the offence has been registered under Indian Forest Act along with the offence under Wild Life (Protection) Act, and if the Magistrate, having jurisdiction to try the offences, has received the intimation under Section 52(4) of the Indian Forest Act regarding initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the property, then the concerning Magistrate has no jurisdiction to release the disputed property on Supurdginama. In the instant case, Chief Judicial Magistrate has received the information under Section 52(4) of the Indian Forest Act regarding initiation of proceedings for confiscation, therefore, he has rightly dismissed the application filed by the applicant. Thus, no interference is called for in this revision and this revision is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and gone through the impugned order and other material on record. It reveals from the impugned order that accused Pinku Kewat has been prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 27, 29, 39, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and under Sections 2, 41, 52 of the Indian Forest Act. It further reveals from the impugned order that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi had already received an information under Section 52(4) of the Indian Forest Act in regard to the fact that the confiscation