Section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment, 1989) creates an absolute bar on the jurisdiction of any court or authority, except for authorized officers or appellate/revisional authorities, to order the release of property once confiscation proceedings have been initiated.

whereby and whereunder the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi refused to release the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.JH-01-CS-0733 in favor of the sole opposite party which vehicle was seized by the Range Forest Officer, Tamar Forest Range under section 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment, 1989) for violation of Section 33 , 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act on the ground that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated regarding the seized vehicle, as well as the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi in the said Complaint Case No.4233 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi has issued direction for release of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.JH-01-CS-0733 in favor of the sole opposite party in terms of the said impugned order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.493 of 2018.

The learned Revisional Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Agrawal vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2014 (3) JBCJ 447 [HC], which relates to the confiscation proceeding in connection with MMDR Act , wherein the co-ordinate bench of this Court opined that even if confiscation proceeding would have been started still vehicle seized can be released by the court concerned and release of vehicle could not affect the confiscation proceeding as the confiscation proceeding and release of the vehicle are two different proceedings and quite independent to each other and in the facts of that case, considering that the sole opposite party is the owner of the seized vehicle, ordered for release of the said vehicle.

Learned GA-III relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Uday Singh and other allied cases reported in (2020) 12 SCC 733 and submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to analyse the amendments brought by M.P. Act 25 of 1983 to the Forest Act, 1927 which is in pari materia to the amendment brought by the Bihar Amendment to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 wherein the specific provision have been made for the seizure and confiscation of forest produce and of tools, boats, vehicles and articles used in the commission of offences and Section 52 -C stipulates that on the receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate under Section 52 (4), no court, tribunal or authority, other than an authorized officer, an appellate authority or Court of Session (under sections 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which confiscation proceedings have been initiated and as Section 52 -C (1) has a non obstante provision which operates, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or in any other law for the time being in force and the only saving is in respect of an officer duly empowered by the State Government, for directing the immediate release of a property seized under Section 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as provided in Section 61 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, hence, upon receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate of the initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 52 (4)(a) of Indian Forest Act, 1927, the bar of jurisdiction under Section 52 -C (1) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 is definitely attracted. Therefore, the direction issued by the High Court in that case in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate to direct the interim release of the vehicle, which has been seized, being contrary to the law the Supreme Court of India set aside the said order of the High Court in that case. The learned Government Advocate further summits that in view of the categorical pronouncement of the law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi committed a grave illegality by relying upon the judgment of Satyanaraya