Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kedar Rawat vs State Of M.P. on 16 October, 2014
(Kedar Rawat Vs. State of M.P.) 1 M.Cr.C.10252/2012
(Deena Vs. State of M.P. ) M.Cr.C. No.10253/2012
16.10.2014
Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocate, for the
petitioners.
Shri Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer, for
the respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Since a common question of facts and law are involved in these similar matters, with the consent of the parties, the matters are heard analogously and are decided by this common order.
The tractor-trolley No.MP.06/J-3170 owned by petitioner Kedar and tractor-trolley No.MP.31/AA-2858 owned by Petitioner Deena have been seized with allegation that it were being used for illegal transport of sand from the reserve forest area without a valid permit and licence. Subsequently, Crime No.22511/12 (POR) has been filed by the Police Station Tetra for the offence under Sections 27, 29, 50, 51 and 52, the Wild Life Protection, Act, 1972 and Sections 41 and 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioner filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sabalgarh for interim possession (supurdgi) of the tractor which was refused by J.M.F.C. vide order (Kedar Rawat Vs. State of M.P.) 2 M.Cr.C.10252/2012 (Deena Vs. State of M.P. ) M.Cr.C. No.10253/2012 dated 27.07.2012.
On filing a revision No.208/12 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, decided the same on 27.09.2012 and maintained the order of the learned JMFC and disallowed the revision.
The petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set-aside the orders of both the Courts below on the ground that the impugned order is not in accordance with law and challenged the same in the light of the law laid down in State of M.P. Vs. Madhukar Rao reported as 2008 (I) MPJR 189, Dilip Vs. State of M.P., decided on 7.7.2011 passed in M.Cr.C.No.7937/08, Harendra Singh Chauhan Vs. State of M.P. decided on 19.9.2011 passed in M.Cr.C.No.6442/2011 decided on 19.09.2011 and Gar Singh Kushwah Vs. State of M.P. decided on 15.9.2011 passed in M.Cr.C.5667/11.
The application is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer and argued that the questioned tractor and trolley were seized under Forest Act. Once, the intimation has been given to the Magistrate about the initiation of the proceedings of the confiscation of the vehicle then the learned Magistrate seized to have any (Kedar Rawat Vs. State of M.P.) 3 M.Cr.C.10252/2012 (Deena Vs. State of M.P. ) M.Cr.C. No.10253/2012 jurisdiction in this matter. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.7.2012 of the JMFC and consequent order of revision dated 27.9.2012 of the ASJ Sabalgarh are valid in law.
Considered the submissions made by both the parties and case laws filed down by the counsel for the petitioner.
In Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of M.P., 1992 Cri.L.J. 368, the Court has held that, "17. In the ultimate analysis I find that the applicability of S. 52-C of the Central Act is attracted in the instant case and the Magistrate's jurisdiction to make orders with regard to interim custody of the truck in question stands ousted."
In Rishi Nath Singh Vs. State of M.P. And others,1992 Cri.L.J., 1764, this Court adopted the view that, "9. .......... Therefore, in my opinion, after the directions of this Court in writ petition the legal proceedings to acquire the vehicle on Supurdgi are not saved after the notice and intimation of confiscation of the seized truck under the provisions of Forest Act. Therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal and decide the application of the applicant for the same."
This Court again reiterated the same view in Vishambhar Yadav Vs. State of M.P., 2002 (3) (Kedar Rawat Vs. State of M.P.) 4 M.Cr.C.10252/2012 (Deena Vs. State of M.P. ) M.Cr.C. No.10253/2012 MPLJ 245 and held that, "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 under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code in cases he is informed by Forest Officer under section 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 petitioner's application moved under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thus this revision petition does not merit which is accordingly disallowed and rejected at this stage of motion hearing."
In another case reported as State of West Bengal and others Vs. Sujeet Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 159 it is held that, Sec. 59-G of West Bengal Sec. 52C of Madhya Amendment Pradesh Amendment Bar of jurisdiction in Bar to jurisdiction of certain cases.-- courts etc. under certain Notwithstanding any-thing circumstances:-
to the contrary contained (1) On receipt of in this Act or in the Code intimation under Sub- of Criminal Procedure, section 4 of Section 52 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any about initiation of the other law for the time proceeding for being in force, the officer confiscation of the authorized under Section property by the Magistrate 59-C or the District Judge having jurisdiction to try to whom an appeal may be the offence on account of (Kedar Rawat Vs. State of M.P.) 5 M.Cr.C.10252/2012 (Deena Vs. State of M.P. ) M.Cr.C. No.10253/2012 preferred under Section which the seizure of the 59-D shall have and any property which is subject other officer or Forest matter of confiscation, has Officer or court, tribunal been made, no court, or authority shall not have tribunal or authority (other jurisdiction to make orders than the authorized with regard to the custody, officers, appellate possession, delivery, authority and the court of disposal or distribution of Sessions referred to in any property or tools, Section 52, 52-A, and 52- ropes, chains, boats, B), shall have jurisdiction vehicles or cattle seized to make order with regard under Section 52. to possession, delivery, disposal of distribution of the property in regard to (Emphasis which proceedings for Supplied) 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 sub-section 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 (Kedar Rawat Vs. State of M.P.) 6 M.Cr.C.10252/2012 (Deena Vs. State of M.P. ) M.Cr.C. No.10253/2012 provision by all the courts and the bar to exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such courts."
(Emphasis Supplied) The case of Madhukar Rao (supra) relied by the petitioner in the opinion of this Court has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case.
A subsequent view has been taken by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.2013, Ramniwas Vs. Game Ranger, Chambal Abhyavaran and others decided on 3.2.2012 in which this Court deferred the view adopted in case of Dilip (Supra) and has taken a view that in the light of the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as per views expressed in the cases of Kanhaiyalal, Rishi Nath Singh, Vishambhar Yadav (supra) and pointing judgment of Supreme Court in Sujeet Kumar Rana (supra) held that the revisional Court have not committed any error in rejecting the applications.
In view of the above legal position, this Court is also of the opinion that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Kedar Rawat Vs. State of M.P.) 7 M.Cr.C.10252/2012 (Deena Vs. State of M.P. ) M.Cr.C. No.10253/2012 has not committed any error in passing the impugned orders. Therefore, petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(S.K. Palo) Judge mani