Anjani Patel vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant t o set aside the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi District-Sidhi in Criminal Revision No.112/2019 in which Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi affirmed the order dated 30.09.2019 in Forest Crime No.532/2010 passed by Appellate Authority i.e. Appellate Authority & Field Director Sanjay Tiger Reserve, Sidhi, District-Sidhi, arising out of order dated 26.07.2019 passed by competent authority i.e. Authorized Officer & Superintendent, Son Ghariyal Sancturary Sidhi, Disctrict-Sidhi in order No.12/2019 whereby the authority confiscated the tractor bearing registration No.MP-53-AA-4540 of the applicant.

According to the case, on 17.02.2018 at about 09:00 am, information received by an informant, during patrolling, the Forest Officials saw a tractor bearing registration MP-53-AA-4540 with trolly was loaded sand from restricted area. During search, 03 cubic meter sand was seized from the said vehicle and found that applicant theft the said sand in restricted area i.e. Son Ghadiya River and it is found that applicant did not have any valid document for transporting the sand. Thereafter, forest officials registered the case under Forest Act in connection with Crime No.532/2010 dated 19.02.2018 and seized the aforesaid sand along with tractor and trolly. Confiscation proceedings was initiated against the present applicant and information was also sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Competent Authority found that alleged tractor-trolly was involved in forest offence. Therefore, he passed the order of confiscation of tractor trolly with sand. Thereafter, applicant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Appellate Authority & Field Director Sanjay Tiger Reserve, Sidhi, District-Sidhi. The appeal was dismissed on merits then present applicant filed criminal revision before III Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge Sidhi in Criminal Revision No.112/2019 which was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is palpably wrong. Police has seized the said vehicle in the house of present applicant and registered the said case against him due to enmity between the present applicant and Rampratap Patel and Brajnandan Patel. As per prosecution itself, the aforesaid vehicle was seized at the distance of 150 meters from the Son river and no illegal sand was loaded in the aforesaid vehicle. Actually the aforesaid tractor was coming from his farm filled with surface soil, which has been forcibly seized only on the basis of information given by the informer/witnesses, namely, Rampratap and Brajnandan. Police demanded money from the applicant and when he did not give the same to the police, then he lodged the false case against him. Forest Officer registered the said case on 17.02.2018 against the present applicant but on 23.02.2018, information given to the concerned Magistrate, Sidhi. Applicant is registered owner of the said vehicle and if the vehicle is kept in open place then it will be damaged. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the order of confiscation and releasing tractor trolly in favour of applicant. In support of his contention he has relied the judgment of Hon'a™ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 290.

On the other hand, learned panel lawyer for respondent State opposes the petition and submits that this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable as full procedure is prescribed under Forest Act for availing the remedy against the order of confiscation, therefore, this Court may not pass any order while exercising inherent power. He further submitted that as per Section 52(b)(5) of the Indian Forest Act it reveals that the order of Revisional Court is statutorily provided to be final with a further rider that same shall not be called in question before any other Court not withstanding anything contrary to Code of Criminal Procedure. With the aforesaid he prays for dismissal of this petition.

Heard both the parties and perused the case diary.

Since, the learned counsel for the respondent raises objection regarding maintainability of this petition. The above said provision containing the statutory bar is reproduced hereinunder:-

'' 52B(5) - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) the order of the Court of Sessions passed under this section shall be final and shall not be called in question before any court. ''

O n perusal of above said provision, it is evident that the order of Revision shall be attained finality and neither under the Indian Forest Act nor under the Cr.P.C., the same can be challenged. Further, in the case of State of W.B. & others Vs. Sujeet Singh Rana reported in (2004) 4 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, can be exercised in relation to a matter pending before a ' Court ' which in the context of Cr.P.C would mean a ' Criminal Court 'Â. Further, the Higher Court held that jurisdiction of Criminal Court stood excluded under Forest Act, once the confiscation proceeding were initiated, however, High Court can exercise such a power only in exercise of its power of judicial review. Further, co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of The State of MP Vs. Manish Kumar Garg passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2640/2015 held that under Forest Act, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable against the order passed in revision petition by the Sessions Judge. Further, the Court held that an order passed in Revision under Section 52-B of the Forest Act can be challenged in writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, in such circumstances this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, the only remedy to the petitioner is to invoke the power of judicial review or of Superintendence under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Office is directed to provide the copy of documents annexued with the petition after retaining the true copy thereof, to the learned counsel for the applicant.

In view of the above, this M.Cr.C. is dismissed being not maintainable.