Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 September, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 25th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No.21561 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
AMIT SINGH S/O LATE ABHAYARAJ SINGH AGED ABOUT
42 YEARS, OCCUPATION PRIVATE JOB, R/O VILLAGE
NAUDIYA POST KANHWAR, POLICE STATION RAMPUR
NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MP)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ARUNODAY SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FOREST, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MP)
2. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CIRCLE REWA,
DISTRICT REWA (MP)
3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER DIVISION
SIDHI, DISTRICT SIDHI (MP)
4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
DIVISION SIDHI, DISTRICT SIDHI (MP)
5. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, RANGE
CHURHAT, DISTRICT SIDHI (MP)
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARTI DWIVEDI - PANEL LAWYER)
..............................................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 06.09.2023
Pronounced on : 25.09.2023
..............................................................................................................................................................................
2
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the
following:
ORDER
By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 28.07.2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of confiscation of his vehicle got rejected and also the notice dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Sidhi whereby it was directed to surrender the vehicle in question i.e. Hyva bearing registration No. MP-53-HA-1789 before the authority.
2. As per the facts of the case, in pursuance to registration of an offence vide Forest Crime No.573/2020 on 07.05.2017 under Sections 26(G),(H), 52 of the Indian Forest Act and Sections 3, 16, 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Transit (Forest Produce) Rules 2000 and Sections 2(17), 27, 39, 50, 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. Hyva bearing registration No.MP-53-HA-1789 got confiscated. However, during pendency of confiscation proceeding, the interim custody of the said vehicle was given to the petitioner vide order dated 01.03.2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.654/2018 [Amit singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh], but when confiscation proceeding completed at all level and it is found that the vehicle in question was involved in the alleged crime, the application preferred by the petitioner got rejected. Against rejection of his application, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but 3 that also got rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision, but that also got dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2021 (Annexure-P/1). Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities while considering the petitioner's application have not considered the facts properly. He submits that the vehicle in question is the only source of income of the petitioner and if the same is seized, then he will face irreparable loss.
4. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of documents available on record, I am of the opinion that this petition is without any substance for the reason that if any vehicle is found involved in the Forest Act and confiscation proceeding is completed, then the same cannot be released unless the authority itself finds that the vehicle can be released. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in (2020) 12 SCC 733 [State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Uday Singh] has considered this aspect and observed that no Court can issue any direction for release of the vehicle, if it is confiscated under the forest offence. In fact, this Court in W.P. No.18604/2021 [Dilip Buidcon Ltd. Vs. Chief Conservator of Forest and others] relying upon the observation made by the Supreme Court in Uday Singh (supra) has observed as under:-
"I deem it apt to reproduce:-
"29. Our analysis of the amendments brought by MP Act 25 of 1983 to the 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.
29.1 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-4
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.
29.2 The order of confiscation under Section 52(3) is subject to an appeal under Section 52-A and a revision under Section 52-B. Subsection (5) of Section 52-B imparts finality to the order of the Court of Sessions in revision notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in CrPC and provides that it shall not be called into question before any court. 29.3 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 Sections 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 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.
29.4 The scheme contained in the amendments enacted to the 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 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 CrPC was not available to the Magistrate, once the authorised officer 5 initiated confiscation proceedings."
The object for not releasing the confiscated vehicle in a forest offence has been enlighted by the Supreme Court in paragraph 30 of the judgment, which provides as under:-
"30. The Madhya Pradesh amendments to the Forest Act, 1927 are infused with a salutary public purpose. Protection of forests against depredation is a constitutionally mandated goal exemplified by Article 48-A of the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Duty of every citizen incorporated in Article 51A(g). By isolating the confiscation of forest produce and the instruments utilized for the commission of an offence from criminal trials, the legislature intended to ensure that confiscation is an effective deterrent. The absence of effective deterrence was considered by the Legislature to be a deficiency in the legal regime. The State Amendment has sought to overcome that deficiency by imposing stringent deterrents against activities which threaten the pristine existence of forests in Madhya Pradesh. As an effective tool for protecting and preserving environment, these provisions must receive a purposive interpretation. For, it is only when the interpretation of law keeps pace with the object of the legislature that the grave evils which pose a danger to our natural environment can be suppressed. The avarice of humankind through the ages has resulted in an alarming depletion of the natural environment. The consequences of climate change are bearing down on every day of our existence. Statutory interpretation must remain eternally vigilant to the daily assaults on the environment."
Inevitably, the observation and object of not releasing the confiscated vehicle in forest offence, makes it amply clear that the Supreme Court was not of the opinion that the order of release can be given by the High Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but merely specified that it cannot be given in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Adverting to the decision rendered by the Gwalior Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.Cr.C.No.2640/2014 (The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manish Kumar Garg) on 04.08.2015, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner saying that the Court has observed that as per Section 52B(5) of the Indian Forest Act, the order in revision has attained finality, therefore, the only remedy available to the State is to invoke the powers of judicial review or of superintendence under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, it does not mean that the High Court cannot issue the order of release of vehicle directing the Magistrate, however, I am not convinced with 6 the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner because the intention of the Supreme Court is very clear that if any vehicle or property is involved and confiscated in forest offence, no direction for its release can be given by the High Court."
5. That apart, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case reported in 2021 SCC OnLine MP 5810 [Surendra Meena Vs. State of M.P.] dealing with the similar circumstances as exist in the present case has observed as under:-
"8. From perusal of the record it is seen that seizure of vehicle under the Wild Life Act, the tractor along with the trolley was seized which belongs to the petitioner. In the case of Uday Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the aforesaid aspect and has held that the learned Judicial Magistrate is having no power to consider an application for release of the vehicle. The proceedings have been initiated by the Collector for confiscation. Collector being the authorized officer, therefore, the application should have been filed before the authorized Officer himself.
9. The relevant para of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court is para 26 in the case of Uday Singh (Supra) wherein, it has been held as under:--
26. Our analysis of the amendments brought by MP Act 25 of 1983 to the Indian 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 27 Writ Petition No 18818 of 2017 decided on 15 February 2018 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 7 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 Sessions in revision notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in the CrPC 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 Sections 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.
27. The Madhya Pradesh amendments to the Indian Forest Act 1927 are infused with a salutary public purpose. Protection of forests against depredation is a constitutionally mandated goal exemplified by Article 48A 28 of the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Duty of every citizen incorporated in Article 51A(g)29. By isolating the confiscation of forest produce and the instruments utilised for the commission of an offence from criminal trials, the legislature intended to ensure that confiscation is an effective deterrent. The absence of effective deterrence was considered by the Legislature to be a deficiency in the legal regime. The state amendment has sought to overcome that deficiency by imposing stringent deterrents against activities which threaten the pristine existence of forests in Madhya Pradesh. As an 8 effective tool for protecting and preserving environment, these provisions must receive a purposive interpretation."
10. In such circumstances, the order impugned has rightly been passed. The same does not call for any interference in the petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
11. Even otherwise, the order impugned is passed in criminal revision, therefore, the petitioner should have filed the proper proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C against the order passed in criminal revision. In such circumstances also, the impugned order passed by the authorities is just and proper and does not call for any interference in the present writ petition.
12. Petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs."
6. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the petition being without any substance, is hereby dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish DEVASHISH MISHRA 2023.09.27 11:03:03 +05'30'