Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Jakir Khan - Applicant
Versus
State of M.P. and another - Respondents
Cr.R. No. 206 of 2012
Decided On : 13-04-2017
Cr.P.C - Release of Vehicle - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 27, 29, 39(1)(d), 41, 42, 52, 52-A, 52-B, 52-C - The court held that once an intimation is given to the Magistrate regarding the initiation of confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, the Magistrate loses jurisdiction to release the vehicle on interim custody. The specific provisions under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act provide for confiscation proceedings and remedies against the said order. The court emphasized that no court can go against the provisions enacted in the Forest Act, and when intimation is given to the concerned Magistrate that the property seized under the Indian Forest Act is under confiscation, the Magistrate has no right to release the property either temporarily or finally. The revisional court did not commit any mistake by setting aside the order of the Magistrate.
Fact of the Case:
A tractor was seized by the forest authorities in connection with an offence under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The vehicle was confiscated, and during the pendency of the confiscation proceedings, an application was filed for release of the vehicle on interim custody. The Magistrate allowed the application, but the revisional court set aside the order of the Magistrate, leading to the filing of this criminal revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that once an intimation is given to the Magistrate regarding the initiation of confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, the Magistrate loses jurisdiction to release the vehicle on interim custody. The court emphasized the specific provisions under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act and held that the revisional court did not commit any mistake by setting aside the order of the Magistrate.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to release the vehicle on interim custody during the pendency of confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, specifically Section 52, and the principle that once an intimation is given to the Magistrate regarding the initiation of confiscation proceedings, the Magistrate loses jurisdiction to release the vehicle on interim custody.
Final Decision: The application was dismissed with liberty to the applicant to file an application for release of the vehicle in the confiscation proceedings, which would be decided by the authority in accordance with the law.
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
1. This Criminal Revision under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dated 7.2.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Morena in Cr.Revision No.223 of 2011 setting-aside the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by JMFC, Morena in M.Cr.C No.369 of 2011 by which, the Magistrate had allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 457 of Cr.P.C for release of the vehicle.
2. Necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that a Tractor bearing Registration No.MP06/A-2808 was seized by the forest authorities in connection with an offence punishable under Section 27, 29, 39(1) (d), 550, 551 and also under Section 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act, 1927. The said vehicle was confiscated by the order dated 7.3.2011. Against the order of confiscation, the applicant filed an appeal which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the prescribed officer to decide confiscation proceedings afresh. During pendency of the confiscation proceedings, the applicant filed an application under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C for release of the vehicle on supurdginama. The said application was allowed and the vehicle was directed to be released on supurdginama in favour of the applicant.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate, the respondent filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Court Morena. The said revision has been allowed by order dated 7.2.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Morena in Cr.Revision No.223 of 2011. Hence, this revision has been filed by the applicant.
4. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao reported in 2008 Volume 1 JT 364, the Magistrate did not commit any mistake in releasing the vehicle on interim supurdgi and the revisional Court has wrongly set-aside the order of Magistrate.
5. Per-contra, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that once an information has been given to the Magistrate with regard to the initiation of the confiscation proceedings, then, he looses all it's jurisdiction to release the vehicle on interim custody.
6. This Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Shivdayal (Cr.Revision No. 24 of 2012) has held as under :
"It appears that the revisionary Court has relied upon the order passed by the single Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7937/2008 (Dilip v. State of M.P.) which was dependent upon the judgment of Apex Court in case of Madhukar Rao. However, if case of "Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P. and others" reported in 2000 (1) MPLJ 289, decided by full Bench of this Court is considered then in Para 20 of that judgment, it is held that if property is seized under Indian Forest Act then situation would be different. The entire case decided by the full Bench was relating to the provision of confiscation in Wild Life Protection Act. In Wild Life Protection Act, there is no provision of any inquiry or confiscation proceeding and, therefore, such view was given by the full Bench of this Court, which was duly confirmed by the Supreme Court. However, in Forest Act, various provisions of Sections 52, 52-A, 52- B and 52-C were enacted, in which the proceeding of confiscation is provided. No Court including the Apex Court has declared such provision to be ultra virus and, therefore, according to those provisions when intimation is given to the concerned Magistrate that the property seized under the Indian Forest Act is under confiscation then Magistrate has no right to release the property either temporarily or finally. In various cases, the Supreme Court has its firmed view that no Court can go against the provisions enacted in the Forest Act. Hence, when provisions under Sections 52, 52-A, 52-B and 52- C of the Indian Forest Act have not been declared ultra virus then those cannot be defeated by any of the Court. Position of Madhukar Rao's case is different. It was not related to the Indian Forest Act and, therefore, by relying
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
