Manoj Kumar Jain vs State of Madhya Pradesh

S.C. Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on the question of admission.

It is alleged that the jeep belonging to the applicant was being used for carrying seven pieces of teak-wood logs. These logs were seized by the police which appears to have registered an offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code and proceeded u/s 52 of Indian Forest Act (henceforth ''the Act'') and Section 15 of Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1986.

The applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle. He filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bijawar, seeking custody of Jeep No. MP 15-D/3475. The learned Magistrate had received prior intimation on 3-2-2000 that the aforesaid jeep was liable to be confiscated by the competent forest officer and for this purpose necessary proceedings were being started. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate did not exercise its power u/s 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and dismissed the application of the applicant.

In revision, the learned Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur confirmed the order of learned Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 27-4-2000, passed in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2000, relying on a decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Rakesh Kumar, reported in 1994 JLJ 581.

It is true that initially, the police had seized the goods, in question, and, therefore, the jurisdiction of Magistrate was attracted. He was fully authorised to release the goods even in those cases where a forest offence was committed. If a forest authority has seized the property, in question, then there was no question of application of Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the forest authority is not entitled to prosecute and file a challan before a Magistrate. However, in this case, Section 57C of the Act became operative at the moment the Judicial Magistrate First Class was intimated that the proceedings under Sections 52A and 52B of the Act are being taken up for confiscation of the property. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has stopped the proceedings u/s 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and dismissed the application filed by the applicant.

The order of the learned Sessions Judge, which is based on a decision of this Court in Rakesh Kumar''s case (supra), confirming the order of learned Magistrate, appears to be correct. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order and any impropriety therein.

Since the forest authority has seized the jeep and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to move the Forest Authority for passing an appropriate order in accordance with law. This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has, therefore, no force and it is accordingly, dismissed. However, in case, an appropriate application is filed by the applicant before the Forest Authority - concerned, it shall, in consonance with the justice, dispose of the application of the applicant within a period of two months from the date of filing of the application so that the jeep is not kept idle.

C.C. as per rules.

Misc. Criminal Case dismissed.