IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 29 OF MAY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18490 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

FIROZ KHAN S/O AJMERI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O GHIROLI TEHSIL CHINORE, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI VIJAY SUNDARAM - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH VAN PARICHHETRADHIKARI/ UP VAN MANDAL ADHIKARI GWALIOR, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI ROHIT SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:

vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuosnu gS] fd vkosnd dh vksj ls izLrqr fofo/k vkijkf/kd ;kfpdk Lohdkj djrs gq;s mi ou e.My vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ikfjr 11-03-24 ,oa vihyh; vf/kdkjh ,oa insu ou laj{kd ou o`Rr Xokfy;j }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 31-12-23 ,oa 23-09-22 dks Hkh vikLr fd;k tkdj vkosnd dks fookfnr tIr'kqnk okgu VszDVj Lojkt iath;u dzekad lh-th- 04 ts-D;w- 4430 uhys jax dk lwiwnZxh esa nsus dk vkns'k ikfjr djus dh d`ik djsaA

2. The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC are invoked assailing concurrent findings of three authorities right from the Prescribed Authority-cum-Deputy DFO, Gwalior [Forest Division Gwalior (Terr.)], dated 15.06.2022; Appellate Authority-cum-Conservator of Forest Gwalior Circle, Gwalior, dated 23.09.2022 and Revisional Authority (Ninth Additional Session Judge, Gwalior), dated 31.12.2022 whereby trolly bearing registration No.CG-04-ZQ-4430 involved in commission of forest offence of illegal excavation and transportation of the sand from within the concerned reserved forest, has been confiscated.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has primarily raised two grounds infra:-

(i) that there is nothing to indicate that forest offence committed was with tacit or active consent/knowledge of the owner of the vehicle i.e. petitioner, and (ii) that since value of forest produce seized was less than Rs.1,000/- the beneficial provision of compounding under Rule 22(3) of the M.P. Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 2000 ought to have been invoked in favour of petitioner.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 22 of Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 2000, wherein under Sub-Rule (3) it has been mentioned that where the forest produce in respect of which an offence has been committed, is not the property of the government or despite being the property of government, the value of such forest produce is less than one thousand rupees and if the offender has committed the offence for the first time, then the case can be compounded on payment of the sum of ten thousand rupees or the value of the vehicle, whichever is less, by an officer not below the rank of the Sub Divisional Officer (Forest).

5. It was further submitted that the petitioner except for coming to this Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction has no other remedy to get back his own vehicle which is admittedly of his ownership and is not denied by the other side, as the respondent authority had illegally kept the said vehicle for long due to which, the condition of the vehicle is deteriorating day by day and no purpose would be served for keeping the said vehicle for an indefinite period.

6. In the context of release of vehicle on Supurdagi, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil Vs. State of Mysore reported in [(1977) 4 SCC 358] wherein it has been held as under:-

“4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the sei