AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 257 wordsNarain Singh ''Azad'', J.
Arguments heard.
A perusal of order dated 10th of October, 2001 passed by J.M.F.C, Baihar of petitioner''s application moved u/s 457 of the Cr.PC reveals that Tempo Trax No. M.P. 25-B1639 is seized by T.I. Baihar on 8th of October, 2001 on this allegation that 16 bags of forest produce (RAAL) was being illegally transported in it. On 15th of October, 2001 the Range Officer Khapa received the aforesaid case on transfer who informed the Asst. Director the same day. Then the Asst. Director is stated to have informed the Court of learned J.M.F.C. under Clause 4 of Section 52 of the Forest Act, about the initiation of confiscation proceedings in respect of aforesaid vehicle. On account of initiation of confiscation proceedings, the learned J.M.F.C. expressed his inability in handing over the vehicle on Supurdagi and thus disallowed the petitioners application. The aforesaid order dated 16th of October, 2001 is being impugned here.
In case the confiscation proceedings are initiated under Clause 3 of Section 52 of the Forest Act, the J.M.F.C. exercising jurisdiction over the relevant area, ceases to have any jurisdiction to pass an order, on application seeking Supurdagi u/s 457 of the Cr.PC in cases he is informed by Forest Officer u/s 52(4) of the Forest Act. Therefore, the learned J.M.F.C. is found to have committed no illegality or impropriety in rejecting the petitioners application moved u/s 457 of the Cr.PC. Thus this revision petition does not merit which is accordingly disallowed and rejected at this stage of motion hearing.