Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neelakanth Rao Sapre[D]Lrs.Vinay & Anr vs The State Of M.P. And Anr on 16 August, 2013
1 W.P. No.2888/2003
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA
Writ Petition No.2888/2003
PETITIONER : Vinjay Sapre S/o. Shri Neelkanth Sapre,
R/o. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Ward,
Khurai, District Sagar (M.P.)
Versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Madhya Pradesh
Through Secretary Forest
Department, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal.
2. Competent Authority cum Forest
Regional Officer, Forest Region,
Khurai, District Sagar (M.P.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner by Shri Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate.
Respondents by Smt. Sheetal Dubey, Government Advocate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(16.08.2013) By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:-
a) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6, passed by the Competent Authority, appellate authority and the revisional Court;
b) to grant any other relief deemed fit:
c) to allow the petition with costs.
2 W.P. No.2888/2003
2. Although quashment of the impugned order dated 5.10.2002 (Annexure-P/4) passed by the competent authority, order dated 14.01.2003 (Annexure-P/5) passed by the appellate authority and order dated 14.04.2003 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the revisional authority has been sought by the petitioner but learned counsel for petitioner submits that no confiscation can be made unless and until criminal proceedings are pending under Section 25 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short "Act of 1927"). Several decisions are also relied on this point.
3. Since admittedly a criminal Case No.759/2007 is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Khurai, District Sagar in which petitioner has been charged under Sections 41 and 42 r/w 76 of the Act 1927, hence according to me, the confiscation order cannot be passed until and unless the criminal trial is concluded and petitioner is convicted.
4. In this view of the matter, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 5.10.2002 (Annexure- P/4) passed by the competent authority, order dated 14.01.2003 (Annexure-P/5) passed by the appellate authority and order dated 14.04.2003 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the revisional authority are quashed and it is hereby held that only after criminal trial is over and 3 W.P. No.2888/2003 petitioner is convicted, necessary orders of confiscation may be passed. The tractor with trolley bearing registration No.MP15-F-3874 which has been seized by the respondents be released on supurdgi to petitioner on his furnish adequate security of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac).
5. Petition is allowed and disposed of. No costs.
(A.K. Shrivastava) Judge 16.08.2013 SS