Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 November, 2020
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
S. B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020
Parvesh Singh Parihar
Vs
The State of M.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.S. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Saxena, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020
Ramesh Kumar Pandey
Vs
The State of M.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Saxena, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020
Harsh Bahadur Singh
Vs
The State of M.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Saxena, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
2
M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020,
M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020,
M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020
M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020
Satyarth Singh
Vs
The State of M.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Saxena, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020
Ravendra Singh
Vs
The State of M.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.S. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Saxena, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020
Pradeep Singh
Vs
The State of M.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pramod Saxena, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
(09.11.2020) 3 M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020 Since, issues involved in the petitions are identical, therefore, these petitions are being decided by passing a common order.
2. M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020 and M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020 have been filed against the impugned order dated 02.07.2020 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Amarpatan, District- Satna arising out of order passed by JMFC, Amarpatan in different dates whereby the JMFC has rejected applications under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners. Another M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020 is also having identical issue challenging the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by ASJ, Amarpatan, District-Satna.
3. A connected M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner-Pradeep Singh directly before this Court challenging the order dated 28.07.2020 passed by JMFC, Amarpatan, District-Satna, without availing the remedy of revision petition before Sessions Court.
4
M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020
4. As per prosecution case, on the basis of information regarding illegal extraction of sand at Son River, the police reached there and found seven Hyva trucks were involved in illegal transportation of sand. The police registered the case, seized the said trucks and arrested the accused persons. Here, six petitioners have filed these petitions for interim custody of their vehicles, details are being given as below:-
S.No. Case No. Registration No. Applicant's Name of involved vehicle 1 M.Cr.C.No. MP-17-HH-3345 Pravesh Singh Parihar 23391/2020 2 M.Cr.C.No. MP-17-HH-3730 Ramesh Kumar Pandey 25026/2020 3 M.Cr.C.No. UP-78-CT-5679 Harsh Bahadur Singh 25065/2020 4 M.Cr.C.No. UP-90-T-4707 Satyarth Singh 27840/2020 5 M.Cr.C.No. MP-17-HH-3430 Ravendra Singh 34203/2020 6 M.Cr.C.No. MP-53-HA-1723 Pradeep Singh 34455/2020
5. The aforesaid vehicles have been seized in connection with Crime No.165/2020 registered at Police Station-Ramnagar, District-Satna for the offences under Sections 379, 414 read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1972, Section 15 of Prayawaran 5 M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020 Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, Sections 27, 29, 39, 41 and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, Sections 2, 41 and 51 of Indian Forest Act and Sections 130(3), 177, 66/192(1), 113 and 194 of Motor Vehicles Act.
6. Learned counsels for the petitioners raised the almost similar facts and arguments submitting that impugned order passed by Courts below are erroneous and deserves to be quashed. It is submitted by the counsels that petitioners are registered owner of abovementioned vehicles and produced documents in this regard before the lower Court. They submit that some of the vehicles have been bought on loan from finance company and their regular installments are being paid by the petitioners. The vehicles are kept in open place and subjected to deteriorate. If the vehicles are not released on interim custody, same might got destroyed completely. The petitioners having valid license for transportation and same were also produced before the lower Court but the Court discarded the same arbitrarily. It is also argued by the counsels that police malafidely endorsed the fact that trucks were found loaded with sand in prohibited area but the place which has been shown in seizure memo, does not belong to 6 M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020 prohibited area as stated by the prosecution. Petitioners are ready to furnish adequate sureties as directed by the Court and they will abide by all the conditions as imposed. It is further submitted by the counsels that Hon'ble the Apex Court has already held that interim custody of seized vehicle cannot be denied to a person who is registered owner. The documents prepared by the police are not found relevant with the story of prosecution. They also raised the arguments on the basis of principle laid down by the Higher Court saying that if the ownership of vehicle is not disputed then in the larger interest of property, the vehicle should be released on interim custody. The Magistrate is having ample power to release the vehicle in interim custody invoking the jurisdiction under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. They submit that seized vehicles are the sources of their livelihood and this right can not be curtailed on the basis of confiscation proceedings. In support of their contentions, they have relied on the following pronouncements:-
1. Umashankar Usrete Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2009 (2) MPLJ 11.7
M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020
2. Sundar Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujart reported in AIR (2003) SC 638.
3. Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt Ltd Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in AIR (2000) SC 449.
4. Madhukar Rao Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2000 (1) MPLJ (FB) 289.
5. Madhya Pradesh Vs. Madhukar Rao reported in 2008(1) JLJ 427.
7. On the other hand learned P.L. for the respondent/State opposes the submissions of petitioners' counsels submitting that vehicles have been seized in connection with crime under various Acts including Forest Act and once an intimation regarding confiscation proceedings has been received by the concerning Magistrate, the jurisdiction of Magistrate is ousted and Magistrate as well as Revisional Court can not grant interim custody of vehicle in view of the bar of Section 52-C of Forest Act, 1927. Therefore, the order passed by Courts below is according to law and does not warrant any interference of this Court. With the aforesaid, he prays for dismissal of these petitions.
8. Heard all the parties and perused the case diary. 8
M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020
9. The main point which is involved in the petitions is that whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. to release the vehicle in interim custody alleged to have been involved in crime under the Forest Act.
10. On perusal of case diary, prima facie it appears that in relation to all the vehicles, intimations have been sent by Authorized Officer/Superintendent of Son Ghadiyal Sanctuary, District-Sidhi on 07.06.2020 to concerning Magistrate. In this regard, the corresponding provisions in the Forest Act for seizure and confiscation of the vehicle of the forest is re-produced herein under:-
"52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure therefore.
(1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce, together with all tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing any such offence may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer.
(2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of an Extra Assistant Conservator of Forest authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) or where it is, having regard to 9 M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020 quantity of bulk or other genuine difficulty, not practicable to produce the property seized before the authorised officer, make a report about the seizure to the authorised officer or where it is intended to launch criminal proceedings against the offender immediately, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made:
Provided that when the forest produce with respect to which offence is believed to have been committed is the property of Government and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to his official superior.
(3) Subject to sub-section (5), where the authorised officer upon production before him of property seized of upon receipt of report about seizure, as the case may be, is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded confiscate forest produce so seized together with all tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing such offence.
A copy of order on confiscation shall be forwarded without any undue delay to the Conservator of Forests of the forest circle in which the timber produce, as the case may be, has been seized.
(4) No order confiscating any property shall be made under sub section (3) unless the authorised officer-
(a) sends an intimation in form prescribed about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made;
10M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020
(b) issues a notice in writing to the person from whom the property is seizure, and to any other person who may appear to the authorised officer to have some interest in such property;
(c) affords an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) of making a representation within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the proposed confiscation, and
(d) gives to the officer effecting the seizure and the person or persons to whom notice has been issued under clause (b), a hearing on date to be fixed for such purpose.
(5) No order of confiscation under sub-section (3) of any tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other article (other than the timber or forest produce seized shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or connivance or as the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for commission of Forest Offence.
"52A. Appeal against the order of confiscation-
(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation may, within thirty days of the order, or if the fact of such order has not been communicated to him, within thirty days of date of knowledge of such order, prefer an appeal in writing, accompanied by such fee and payable in such form as may be prescribed, along with certified copy of order of confiscation to the conservator of forests (hereinafter referred to as Appellate Authority) 11 M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020 of the forest circle in which the forest produce has been seized.
Explanation-(1) The time requisite for obtaining certified copy of order of confiscation shall be excluded while computing period of thirty days referred to in this sub section. (2) The Appellate Authority referred to in sub- section (1), may, where no appeal has been preferred before him, "suo motu" within thirty days of date of receipt of copy of order of confiscation by him, and shall on presentation of memorandum of appeal issue a notice for hearing of appeal or, as the case may be, of "suo motu" action to the officer effecting seizure and to any other person (including appellant, if any) who in the opinion of the Appellate Authority, is likely to be adversely affected by the order of confiscation, and may send for the record of the case:
Provided that no formed notice of appeal need be issued to such amongst the appellant, officer effecting seizure and any other person likely to be adversely affected as aforesaid, as may waive the notice or as may be informed in any other manner of date of hearing of appeal by the Appellate Authority.
(3) The Appellate Authority shall send intimation in writing of lodging of appeal or about "suo motu" action, to the authorised officer.
(4) The Appellate Authority may pass such order of "Interim" nature for custody preservation or disposal (if necessary) of the subject matter of confiscation , as may appear to be just or proper in the circumstances of the case.
(5) The Appellate Authority having regard to the nature of the case or the complexities, involved, may permit parties to the appeal to be 12 M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020 represented by their respective legal practitioner.
(6) On the date fixed for hearing of the appeal or "suo motu" action, or on such date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the Appellate Authority shall peruse the record and hear the parties to the appeal if present in person, or through any agent duly authorised in writing or through a legal practitioner, and shall thereafter proceed to pass an order of confirmation, reversal or modification of [Order of the Authorized Officer]:
Provided that before passing any final order the Appellate Authority may if it is considered necessary for proper decision of appeal or for proper disposal of "suo motu" action make further inquiry itself or cause it to be made by the authorised officer, and may also allow parties to file affidavits for asserting or refuting any fact that may raise for consideration and may allow proof of facts by affidavits.
(7) The Appellate Authority may also pass such orders of consequential nature, as it may deem necessary.
(8) Copy of final order on an order of consequential nature, shall be sent to the authorised officer for compliance or for passing any appropriate order in conformit with the order of Appellate Authority. Section 52B (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) reads as under:-
"52B. Revision before Court of Sessions against order of Appellate Authority.-
(1) Any party to the appeal, aggrieved by final order or by order of consequential nature passed by the Appellate Authority, may within thirty days of the order sought to be impugned, submit a petition for revision to the Court of Sessions division whereof the headquarters of the Appellate Authority are situate.13
M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020 Explanation.- In computing the period of thirty days under this subsection the time requisite for obtaining certified copy of order of Appellate Authority shall be excluded.
(2) The Court of Sessions may confirm, reverse or modify any final order or an order of consequential nature passed by the Appellate Authority.
(3) Copies of the order passed in revision shall be sent to the Appellate Authority and to the Authorised Officer for compliance or for passing such further order or for taking such further action as may be directed by such Court. (4) For entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under this section, the Court of session shall as far as may be, exercise the same powers and follows the same procedure as it exercises and follows while entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974).
(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 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. Sec. 52C of Madhya Pradesh Amendment.
"52-C Bar to jurisdiction of courts etc. under certain circumstances:- (1) On receipt of intimation under Sub-section 4 of Section 52 about initiation of the proceeding for confiscation of the property by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of the property which is subject matter of confiscation, has been made, no court, tribunal or authority (other than the authorized officers, appellate authority and the court of Sessions referred to in Section 52, 52- A, and 52-B), shall have jurisdiction to make 14 M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020 order with regard to possession, delivery, disposal of distribution of the property in regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated under Section 52, notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force.
Explanation : where under any law for the time being in force two or more courts have jurisdiction to try forest offence, then receipt of intimation under subsection 4 of Section 52 by one of the courts of Magistrate having such jurisdiction shall be construed to be in receipt of intimation under that provision by all the courts and the bar to exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such courts."
11. Further, Section 54 of Indian Forest Act speaks about the procedure upon the receipt of intimation by the Magistrate, same is also reproduced herein under :-
"54. Procedure thereupon-Upon the receipt of any such report the Magistrate shall, with all convenient despatch, take such measures as may be necessary for the arrest and trial of the offender and the disposal of the property according to law:
" provided that before passing any order for disposal of property, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that no intimation under sub-section (4) of Section 52 has been received by his Court or by any other Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property has been made."15
M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020
12. As per Section 52-C of Indian Forest Act, 1927, on receipt of intimation under Sub-section 4 of Section 52 about initiation of proceeding for confiscation of the property by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of the property which is subject matter of confiscation, has been made, no court, tribunal or authority (other than the authorized officers, appellate authority and the court of Sessions referred to in Section 52, 52-A, and 52-B), shall have jurisdiction to make order with regard to possession, delivery, disposal of distribution of the property in regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated under Section 52, notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in force.
13. The aforesaid provisions of Indian Forest Act and the amendment incorporated therein were considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramniwas Vs. Game Range Chambal Santuary, Bhind, Headquarter, Ambah, District-Morena reported in 2012(2) MPLJ 661 as well as this Court in the case of 16 M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020 Pankaj Singh Vs. State of M.P. in M.Cr.C.No. 35586/2018.
14. The Court compared analogous provisions in Bengal Amendment Act, 1927 and observed by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Sujeet Kumar Rana reported in 2004(4) SCC 159 in para 17, reads as under:-
"17. The principles which can be culled out from the provisions of the 1927 Act and the judgment in Sujeet Kumar Rana's case (supra) are as under:-
(i) Forest Act is a Special Act;
(ii) M.P. Amendments provide a complete Code in itself by giving sufficient safeguards both substantive and procedural against any arbitrary exercise of power. It also prescribe hierarchy of adjudicatory bodies;
(iii) Section 52-C creates a bar on the jurisdiction of courts as described in it.
Because of non-obstante clause used in Section 52-C it will have an overriding effect on other laws including general provisions of Cr.P.C.;
(iv) Once intimation of initiation of confiscation proceedings is given to Magistrate, the jurisdiction of Magistrate is ousted;
(v) Magistrate and revisions Courts can't grant interim custody of vehicle de hors the bar of Section 52-C.
(vi) Once confiscation proceeding is initiated, the jurisdiction of criminal courts in terms of Section 52- C of the 1927 Act is 17 M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020 barred, the High Court also cannot exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. for interim release of such vehicle/property."
15. Further, in recent pronouncement, State of M.P. Vs. Uday Singh reported in ILR (2020) MP 16 (SC), after retreating the earlier pronouncement Sujeet Kumar Rana (supra) and others, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under :-
"26. Our analysis of the amendments brought by MP Act 25 of 1983 to the India Forest Act , 1927 leads to the conclusion that specific provisions have been made for the seizure and confiscation of forest produce and of tools, boats, vehicles and articles used in the commission of offences. Upon a seizure under Section 52(1), the officer effecting the seizure has to either produce the property before the Authorised Officer or to make a report of the seizure under sub-section (2) of Section 52. Upon being satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, the Authorised Officer is empowered, for reasons to be recorded, to confiscate the forest produce together with the tools, vehicles, boats and articles used in its commission. Before confiscating any property under sub-section (3), the Authorised Officer is required to send an intimation of the initiation of the proceedings for the confiscation of the property to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. Where it is intended to immediately launch a criminal proceeding, a report of the seizure is made to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. The order of confiscation under Section 52(3) is subject to an appeal under Section 52-A and a revision under Section 52-B. Sub- section (5) of Section 52-B imparts finality to the order of the Court of 18 M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020 Sessions in revision notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in the Cr.P.C. and provides that it shall not be called into question before any court. Section 52-C stipulates that on the receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate under sub-section (4) of Section 52, no court, tribunal or authority, other than an Authorised Officer, an Appellate Authority or Court of Sessions (under Section 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which confiscation proceedings have been initiated. Sub-section (1) of Section 52-C has a non obstante provision which operates notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or in any other law for the time being in force. The only saving is in respect of an officer duly empowered by the State government for directing the immediate release of a property seized under Section 52, as provided in Section
61. Hence, upon the receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate of the initiation of confiscation proceedings under sub-section (4)(a) of Section 52, the bar of jurisdiction under sub- section (1) of Section 52-C is clearly attracted. The scheme contained in the amendments enacted to the Indian Forest Act 1927 in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh, makes it abundantly clear that the direction which was issued by the High Court in the present case, in a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, to the Magistrate to direct the interim release of the vehicle, which had been seized, was contrary to law. The jurisdiction under Section 451 of the CrPC was not available to the Magistrate, once the Authorised Officer initiated confiscation proceedings."
(emphasis supplied) 19 M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020
16. Here in the case, since in all the petitions, on 07.06.2020, intimations have been received by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence and in view of the abovementioned pronouncements, the Magistrate is not having jurisdiction under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. to release the vehicle on interim custody in terms of Section 52-C of Forest Act, 1927. The High Court also can not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for interim release of such vehicles. Section 52-C of Indian Forest Act, 1927 has an overriding effect on other laws including general provisions of Cr.P.C.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the law laid down in the above cited judgments, the Courts below have not committed any error in rejecting the said applications and thus, these petitions are hereby dismissed in limine.
18. However, this Court deems it fit to direct the concerning authority to carry out the confiscation proceeding within a period of three months from the date when petitioners are appeared before him.
20
M.Cr.C.No.23391/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25026/2020, M.Cr.C.No.25065/2020, M.Cr.C.No.27840/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34203/2020, M.Cr.C.No.34455/2020
19. A copy of this order shall be sent to concerning authority before whom confiscation proceeding is pending and same be also kept in all the petitions for record purpose.
(Rajendra Kumar Srivastava) Judge sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2020.11.09 17:33:05 +05'30'