Pavan Kumar Pandey vs Sanjay Tiger Reserve Sidhi

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to set aside the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi District-Sidhi in Criminal Revision No.119/2019 in which Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi affirmed the order dated 09.10.2019 passed by Appellate Authority i.e. Chief Conservator officer and Director Sanjay Tiger Reserve, Sidhi, District-Sidhi arising out of order dated 13.11.2018 passed by competent authority i.e. Appellate Authority & Assistant Director, Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Manjhouli, District-Sidhi whereby the authority confiscated the tractor with trolly bearing registration No. MP-17-AA-7540 of the applicant.

According to the case, on 27.12.2017 at about 10:00 am, during patrolling, the Forest Officials saw a tractor bearing registration MP-17-AA-7540 was coming from restricted area. The tractor was loaded with sand. On seeing the forest officials, driver of the said vehicle and other person fled away from the spot. During search, 02 cubic meter sand was seized from the said vehicle and it is found that the said sand excavated from Reserve Forest Area Compartment No.242 and it is also found that the applicant did not have any valid document for the transporting the sand. Thereafter, forest officials registered the case under Forest Act in connection with Crime No.498/2005 dated 27.12.2017 and seized the aforesaid sand in tractor and trolly. Confiscation proceedings was initiated against the present applicant and information was also sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Notice was issued to the present applicant. 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. Chief Conservator officer and 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.119/2019 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 purely illegal. The Assistant Rang Officer, Umaria conducted inquiry memorandum and awarded penalty of Rs.25000/- against the seized tractor and trolly and ordered that if tractor owner has deposited the said fine amount as compensation then the said tractor and trolly shall be released. Thereafter applicant has entered into compromise proceedings dated 01.02.2018 and Rang officer Bastua written recommendation letter to Joint Director Sanjay Tiger Reserve Sidhi that if fine amount deposited by the vehicle owner then the said vehicle shall be released. But another proceedings initiated by the Competent Officer i.e. Appellate Authority & Assistant Director, Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Manjhouli, District-Sidhi and in compliance of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act amended (1983) passed the said impugned order for confiscation of the said vehicle. The said confiscation proceedings was initiated after 6 months. Applicant is registered owner of the 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'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 be passed any order under inherent jurisdiction. He cited Section 52(b)(5) of the Indian Forest Act contending 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 contend in the 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:-

" €œ52B(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. ''

On 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 '. 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 annexed 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.