AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Padmaraj, J.—In all these three matters, which are placed before us, a single Judge Bench of this Court having doubted the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Kallur Rangappa, , has referred the following question of law for consideration by a larger Bench:
Whether the Criminal Revision Petition is maintainable before the High Court against an Order of the Sessions Judge passed u/s 71D(1) of the Karnataka Forest Act?
We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties on the question of law arising for our consideration in the matter under reference.
In the case of Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Kallur Rangappa, , the Division Bench of this Court has ruled as under :
Any order made u/s 71A is appealable under Sections 71D to the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. Section 71D is wide in its amplitude and it takes within its fold "any aggrieved by any order passed u/s 71A or Section 71C....Any order referred to thereunder includes also an interim order regarding the custody of the vehicle. Quite obviously the party aggrieved by the order of the Authorised Officer regarding interim custody of the property, can approach the Sessions Judge u/s 71D.
Needless to state an order made by the Sessions Judge u/s 71D is also revisable by this Court u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When there is such a specific remedy available to a party regarding interim custody of the vehicle, he cannot approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The validity or otherwise of Section 71D of the Karnataka Forest Act is not in question before us. The only question be-fore us is, whether the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the above decision with regard to the provisions contained in Section 71D of the K. F. Act is correct and proper.
In order to appreciate the question of law arising for consideration in the matter under reference, it would be necessary to take note of Section 71D of the Karnataka Forest Act.
Section 71D of the Karnataka Forest Act reads as under:
71D. Appeal - (1) Any person aggrieved by any order passed u/s 71A or Section 71C may, within thirty days from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the (Sessions) Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property to which the order relates has been seized and the (Sessions) Judge shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant (and the authorised officer or the officer specially empowered u/s 71C, as the case may be,) to be heard, pass such order as he may think fit confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against.
((2) An order of the Sessions Judge under Sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court of law.)
The background facts giving rise to the present reference essentially are as follows :
The petitioners, who were aggrieved by an order of the Sessions Judge in the appeals filed before him u/s 71D of the Karnataka Forest Act, preferred revision petitions by invoking the powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. p C, wherein they have challenged or questioned the legalities of the orders passed under appeal by the Sessions Judge u/s 71D(1) of the Act. When the revision petitions filed by the petitioners came up for consideration before the single Judge Bench of this Court, the learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a contention that the revision petitions filed by the petitioners under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C. are not maintainable and that they may have to file the writ petitions to question the legality of the impugned orders. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners however contended that the revision petitions under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C. are clearly maintainable in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Kallur Rangappa, , and hence, they need not approach this Court under its writ jurisdiction. A single Judge Bench of this Court having doubted the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court has referred the question for consideration by a larger Bench. Accordingly, they are now placed before us under the orders of the Hon''ble Chief Justice to consider the question of law in the matter under reference made by the single Judge Bench of this Court.
A bare perusal of the provisions contained in Section 71D of the Karnataka Forest Act would indicate that not only mere finality has been accorded to the Order passed u/s 71D(1) of the Karnataka Forest Act by the Sessions Judge in appeal, but the legislative mandate also further state that it shall not be questioned in any Court of law. Therefore, it may not be permissible for the parties aggrieved by the Order of the Sessions Judge in appeal u/s 71D(1) of the Karnataka Forest Act to question the legality of such order under revision before this Court in exercise of its powers under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C., in view of the legislative mandate contained in Section 71D(2) of the Karnataka Forest Act. We are, therefore, of the clear view that the revision petitions under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C. against an order made by the Sessions Judge in appeal u/s 71D(1) of the Karnataka Forest Act is not maintainable in law in view of the legislative mandate contained in Section 71D(2) of the Act. Applying the same analogy, or the necessary corollary of the said view is that even a petition u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. will not be maintainable against an order of the Sessions Judge in appeal u/s 71D(1) of the Act. That is to say, the petitioners cannot question the legality of such order by invoking the powers of this Court either under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C. or u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. in view of the legislative mandate contained in Section 71D(2) of the Act. The order of Sessions Judge in appeal besides being final and the challenge therefore before any Court being specifically barred u/s 71D(2) of the Act, the inherent powers of this Court u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. cannot be invoked. Therefore, neither the power of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C. nor the inherent power u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. can be invoked or exercised against an Order passed by the Sessions Judge in appeal in view of the legislative mandate contained in section 71D(2) of the Act. It is to be held therefore, that neither the revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C. nor a petition u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. would lie against an Order made by the Sessions Judge in appeal u/s 71D(1) of the Karnataka Forest Act in view of the legislative mandate contained in Section 71D(2) of the Act. The party aggrieved by an Order of the Sessions Judge in appeal u/s 71D(1) of the Karnataka Forest Act cannot invoke the powers of this Court either under Sections 397 and 401 or u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. to question the legality of such order. We are fortified in this view by the two decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dhanwant Singh, and in the case of State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Sujit Kumar Rana, . Although it may not be permissible for the parties to invoke the powers of this Court either under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C. or u/s 482 of Cr. P.C., to question the legality of the Order passed by the Sessions Judge in appeal, u/s 71D(1) of the Karnataka Forest Act, the same cannot be an impediment for the parties to challenge the same under Article 227 of the Constitution. That is to say, though in the light of the specific stipulation in Section 71D(2) of the Karnataka Forest Act, not only mere finality has been accorded to the Order passed u/s 71D(1) of the Act, but the legislative mandate also further stated that "shall not be questioned in any Court of law", it may not be permissible to invoke the powers of this Court under Sections 397, 401, and 482 of Cr. P.C., the same cannot be an impediment to exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution. In so far as, the statues providing for finality of the Order or decision passed in accordance with the provisions of, the statute are concerned, it may be stated that it is well settled that it cannot take away the constitutional rights given by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. That is to say, such an exclusion does not affect the jurisdiction of this Court to issue prerogative writs. We, therefore, find that the ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Kallur Rangappa, , in our considered opinion, does not lay down the correct law and the same is accordingly overruled. The correct position of law in our considered opinion is that no petition either u/s 397 or u/s 401 or even u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. will be maintainable against an order made by the Sessions Judge in appeal in accordance with the provisions contained in section 71D(1) of the Karnataka Forest Act, in view of the finality attached to such order and the further challenge to it before any other Court of law being expressly excluded u/s 71D(2) of the Karnataka Forest Act. This being the correct position of law, the revision petitions filed by the petitioners under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C. against the order of the learned Sessions Judge in appeal are clearly not maintainable in law and they will have to approach this Court under its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is certainly permissible for the parties to question the legality of the impugned Order of the Sessions Judge by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
We, therefore, answer the question of law in the matter under reference as under :
The Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C. against an Order of the Sessions Judge in appeal u/s 71D(1) of the Karnataka Forest Act is not maintainable in view of the clear mandate of the Legislature contained in Section 71D(2) of the Act, which not merely accords finality to the Order passed u/s 71D(1) of the Act, but the legislative mandate also further is that it shall not be questioned in any Court of law. Applying the same analogy, even a petition u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. does not lie against such order. But, such an exclusion does not affect the jurisdiction of this Court to issue prerogative writs. Therefore, the legality of the Order passed by the Sessions Judge u/s 71D(1) of the Act can in proper cases be challenged before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
This being the position of law laid down by us and the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Kallur Rangappa, being held to be no longer a good law, all these petitions filed by the petitioners under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C. against the Order of the Sessions Judge passed u/s 71D(1) of the Act are clearly not maintainable and they will have to be dismissed at the threshold without going into the merits of the case. Therefore, though in the normal course, after answering the question of law in the matter under reference, we would have directed the matters to be placed before the learned Single Judge for consideration of the matters under reference on merits in accordance with law and in the light of our answer to the question of law in the matter under reference, but in view of the fact that the revision petitions filed by the petitioners being not maintainable in law, no useful purpose will be served by resorting to such procedure and it will be a futile exercise. We, therefore, hold that all these revision petitions filed by the petitioners under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C. being not maintainable in view of the law laid down by us, they are liable to be dismissed, which we accordingly do. We would however make it clear that the same cannot be an impediment for the parties to challenge the impugned order made by the learned Single Judge by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, if they are so advised. Reserving such liberty to the petitioners, all these revision petitions filed by them under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C. are hereby dismissed.