ORDER

05.09.2022 Legality, propriety and correctness of Order dated 14.10.2020, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morigaon, in C.R. Case No. 765/2020, is put to challenge in this Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, the learned Court below has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner namely, Md. Simran Sultan, seeking custody of one seized Swift Desire LDI car, bearing Registration No. AS 01/ AN-4274, being the registered owner of the same.

3. The factual background leading to the filing of this present Revision Petition is briefly stated as under:-

“On 17.09.2020, at about 05.30 PM, Shri Dulal Bora, Dy, R. Forest Officer, Nakula Beat, Jagiroad, acting on a tip off apprehended one Md. Simran Sultan and Niranjan Mandal, and Dipon Malakar, while they were carrying one Pangolin, a Schedule -1 species, in a Swift Dezire vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-AN 4274 illegally. Accordingly, the Forest Beat Officer has seized the vehicle and the Pangolin and arrested the accused persons and forwarded them to the court and reported the matter to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon, as well as the Divisional Forest Officer, Nagaon. Thereafter, on

08.10.2020, the wife of the present petitioner namely Rumi Begum had filed one petition before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon, seeking custody of the seized Swift Dezire vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-

01-AN 4274. But, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, having called for a report from the I.O. and after perusing the case record and also perusing the report of the I.O., had rejected the petition.

4. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Court below on the ground that: -

(i) The learned court has committed error by rejecting the petition, without there being a categorical finding to the effect that the vehicle in question was used in commission of the forest offence, (ii) The learned court below has dismissed the petition without considering the provision of section 50(1)(c) of the Wild Life protection Act, (iii) The learned court below has failed to take into account the factual aspect of the case and also failed to take into account that mandatory provision of section 49(5) of the Assam Forest Regulation in respect of confiscation of vehicle has not been followed and also the provision of Rule 50 and

51 of Assam Forest Regulation has not been followed, and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

5. Heard Mr. M.P. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam.

6. Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the seizure of the vehicle on 17.09.2020, and the same has been lying unattended in the Forest Beat Office and exposing to the sun and rain, and its value is diminishing day by day. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the petitioner has been seeking only interim custody of the vehicle and it was seized without complying the relevant provisions of law, and the petitioner is entitled to the same and that he will produce the same before the Court as and when necessary. Mr.

Choudhury, therefore, contended to allow the petition. Mr. Choudhury also referred following case laws in support of his submission:-

(i) Enquiry Officer- Forest Range Officer, vs. Md.

Saheb reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 528;

(ii) State of Karnataka vs. K. Krishnan reported in (2000) 7 SCC 80, (iii) Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Another vs. J.K. Johnson and Others, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 794, (iv) Jogeswar Borah vs. State of Assam and Ors.

reported in 2003 (3) GLT 162

7. On the other hand, Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General. Gogoi, has vehemently opposed the prayer being made by the petitioner and submits that the Authorized Officer