The Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by releasing seized cattle contrary to the provisions of the Indian Forest Act.

1.In both these criminal writ petitions the facts are identical and they raise a common question of law and, therefore, can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are as follows : -
On 16-11-1996 some forest officers, while taking a round by Kakodi - Chichgadh road in a jeep, noticed that the respondent and others were grazing sheep and goats deep inside the compartment No. 660 of the protected forest. On seeing those cattle grazing there, the forest officers went towards the said place, stopped the jeep and got down from it. They had then seized in all 105 sheep and 11 goats which were found grazing in the said compartment of the protected forest. The forest officer, who had seized those cattle under S.52(1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') also found that those cattle ate and damaged forest produce such as grass, young plants of Saja, Bija, Garari, Dhawada, Ghoti and Rohan. The total loss caused by those cattle was estimated to Rs. 77,700/-.

3. On the next day, i.e. on 17-11-1996, the respondent approached the Range Forest Officer, Chichgadh, and admitted that those cattle belong to him. At that time he also informed the Range Forest Officer that one Karan Deba Rabbani was the person who was grazing the cattle in the forest area.

4. The Range Forest Officer then registered an offence No. 115/2869 against the respondent on 16-11-1996 itself and sent a report regarding the seizure under S.52 of the Act to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakoli, as well as to the Authorised Officer. The offence was registered under S.26(1)(d)(f)(g) and 32(1) of the Act and R.66 of the Bombay Forest Rules, 1942, and after completion of investigation, the charge - sheet came to be filed against the respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakoli. The said case was numbered as Criminal Case No. 3625 of 1996.

5. During the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case on 19-11-1996, the respondent filed an application under S.457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the release of his cattle, i.e. sheep and goats, on supratnama. The petitioner had opposed the said application by filing its reply. Not only that but the petitioner had also filed an application under S.55(1) and S.68 of the Act seeking permission for sale of the seized cattle by public auction.

6. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakoli, after hearing both the sides allowed the respondent's application for release of the cattle on supratnama and rejected the petitioner's application for sale of the seized cattle by public auction vide his order dated 22-11-1996.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner - State preferred a Criminal Revision Appln. No. 94 of 1996 before the Sessions Judge, Bhandara. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara, dismissed the said criminal revision application holding that as it was filed against an interlocutory order passed by the learned Magistrate, it was not tenable.

8. Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara, the petitioner - State has come up to this Court with Criminal Writ Petition No. 7 of 1997.

9. After the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakoli, had passed an order allowing the respondent's application for release of the cattle on his supratnama on 22-11-1996, the Authorised Officer passed an order on 13-1-1997 regarding confiscation of the cattle in question under S.61A of the Act. The said order passed by the Authorised Officer on 13-1-1997 was c