[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

O R D E R

(1) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.76/2014

HARUN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

(2) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.646/2014

SUSHIL JAJADA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

(3) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.772/2014

AASHU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

(4) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.953/2014

FAKRUDEEN Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

(5) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.956/2014

TAUFIQ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

(6) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1130/2014

RAJU SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

(7) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1173/2014

BALA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

(8) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1215/2014

TARIF Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

(9) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1415/2014

IQBAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

(10) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1783/2014

ISMAIL KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

(11) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1972/2014

VISHAMBAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE: 23

^rd SEPTEMBER,2015

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT SINGH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

Mr. Virendra Dave,

Mr. Ritwick Dave,

Mr. Manish Gupta,

Mr. Deepak Soni,

Mr. S.R. Chaudhary

Mr. Ankit Khandelwal,

Mr. K.K. Chhawal, for the petitioners.

[2]

Mr. Anurag Sharma, Additional Advocate General

Mr. Ashrut Sethi, for the respondents.

*****

(Reportable)

The following order of the Court was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice

Ajit Singh, Acting Chief Justce:

1.

The petitioners claim themselves to be the owners of

vehicles which have been seized either by a Forest Officer or a Police

Officer not below the rank of a head constable on a reason to believe

that forest offence under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 has been

committed. Also since forest offence has been registered against the

persons alleged to have committed the same, they are being prosecuted

before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try such forest offence. The

petitioners applied for interim release of their vehicles before the

Magistrate under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but

their applications have been rejected on the ground that no Court had

jurisdiction to order for such interim release in view of bar under Section

52C of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. Aggrieved, the petitioners have

approached this High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for interim release of their vehicles. The learned Single Judge

was however of the opinion that decisions of the Supreme Court in State

(NCT of DelhI) Vs. Narender, 2014 (13) SCC 100, State of Madhya

Pradesh Vs. Madhukar Rao, (2008) 14 SCC 624 and Principal Chief

Conservator of Forests Vs. J.K. Johnson, (2011) 10 SCC 794, have led to

diametrically opposed enunciation of law. He has, therefore, framed a

question of law, to be answered by a Larger Bench. This is how the

matter has been placed before us. And the question of law framed is as

follows:-

“Whether, the vehicle seized under the provisions of the

Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 can be released during pendency of

the trial on superdgi to the registered owner by the criminal

court where trial is pending or such a power can only be

exercised by the competent authority named in the Act as per

the amended Sections 52 to 55 of the Act?”

[3]

2.

The Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (in short, 'the Act') is a

special statute enacted for the purposes of preserving the forest and

forest produce in the State. For proper consideration of the question

raised, it is necessary to refer some of the relevant Sections of the Act.

3.

According to Section 2(3) of the Act, forest offence means an

offence punishable under the Act or any other rule framed thereunder

and under Section 67 of the Act, forest offence is triable by a Chief

Judicial Magistrate or any Metropolitan Magistrate or any Magist