Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
J&K State Through vs Mst.Nazira Begum
o;?IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR 561-A No. 99 of 2009 J&K State through Authorized Officer and anr Petitioners Mst.Nazira Begum Respondents !Mr. A.M.Magray, Advocate ^Mr. Z.A.Qureshi, Advocate Honble Mr. Justice J.P.Singh, Judge Date: 03/11/09 :J U D G M E N T:
Acting on Range Officer Manasbal's request, the Divisional Forest Officer Sindh Forest Division, Ganderbal, the Authorized Of Mst. Nazira Begum, the owner of the Tata Mobile, joined the Confiscation proceedings seeking release of the seized vehicle i On the basis of the Enquiry, the Authorized Officer, came to the conclusion that Nazira Begum had committed offences punisha The Authorized Officer's order was questioned by Nazira Begum before learned Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, who, after re-apprec Aggrieved by the learned Sessions Judge's order, the State of Jammu and Kashmir, through its Authorized Officer, has filed t Learned Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, questions the Revisional Court's order on the ground th Opposing the maintainability of the State's Petition, respondent's learned counsel submits that in view of the specific bar I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the Authorized Officer To deal with the petitioners' first submission that the Revisional Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and recordin b� [26-B. Revision before Court of Sessions against order of confiscation (1)Any party aggrieved by an order of confiscation under [Section 26] may within thirty days of the order or if facts of the (2)The Court of Sessions may confirm, reverse or modify any final order of consequential nature passed by the Authorized Offi (3)Copies of the order passed in revision shall be sent to the Authorized Officer for compliance or passing such further orde (4)For entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under this section, the Court of Sessions shall, as far as may be, exerc (5)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, Samvat 1989, the order of Court of S Perusal of the provisions of Section 26-B(2) reveal that while vesting powers to confirm, reverse or modify any final order I , therefore, do not find any merit in the State's plea that re-appraisal of evidence by the Court of Sessions seized of th Before, however, dealing with the question as to whether or not the learned Sessions Judge has erred in returning its findin The provisions of Section 26-B(5) of the Forest Act, which open with the non obstante Clause to the effect that notwithstand It is thus explicit that resort to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State in invoking jurisdiction un The State's petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to question the order of the Court of Sess The Bar enacted by Section 26-B(5) of the Code that the order passed by the Court of Sessions shall not be called in questio The case law cited by learned State counsel is distinguishable on facts, in that, the order passed by the learned Sessions J The State's Petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is, therefore, held non-maintainable. In any cas Learned State counsel's other plea that the learned Sessions Judge having no jurisdiction to punish for Contempt of Court un Even otherwise, I do not see any illegality in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge directing presence of the Auth For all what has been said above, I do not find any merit in this Petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.
(J. P.Singh) Judge SRINAGAR 03.11.2009 Pawan Chopra