Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Petitioners being the State of West Bengal, Divisional Forest Officer, Kharagpur Division and Forest Ranger Officer, Ghatal have challenged the order No. 12 dated December 15, 2017 in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2016 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghatal arising out of an order dated February 13, 2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur in connection with P.R. No. 03/G.T.L. of 2015/2016 and impugned order dated December 26, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur directing the petitioners to be personally present on January 30, 2018 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur.

On replying being submitted the petitioner no. 2 Divisional Forest Officer gave personal hearing on July 25, 2016 by recording their deposition passed a reasoned order being Office Order No. 318/15-2 (P & L)/Confis./2016 dated, Kharagpur, the 17.10.2016 directing the petitioner no. 3 to take permanent charge of the vehicle under reference with immediate effect for the purpose of confiscating the same by the Authorised Officer.

On being aggrieved by the reasoned order the opposite party owner of the vehicle filed an application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur for release of the vehicle and the learned ACJM, Ghatal rejected the application by order dated 13th February, 2017 without considering the observation in the decision reported in 2016 (2) C Cr LR (Cal.) 585 as the case was not apposite to the facts of the instant case as the cited decision was in respect of seizure of the taxi under Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 when a confiscation of the vehicle was done by the Authorised Officer under Section 59A(3) of the Indian Forest Act as amended by the State of West Bengal and the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Court to return the seized vehicle is ousted and in conclusion the learned ACJM, Ghatal was of the view that it is apparent from the report of E.O. the vehicle has been confiscated under Section 59(A) of the Forest Act as amended. Accordingly, the petition of the owner petitioner was rejected as the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is barred to return the same under the provision of Section 59(B) of the Forest Act.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.2.2017 passed by the ACJM, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur, the opposite party herein preferred criminal revision under Sections 397/399 Cr.P.C. read with the Section 401 of the Code on the contention that on 16.2.2016 in connection with P.O.R. being No. 3/G.T.L. 2015- 2016 dated 15.2.2016 vide memo no. 55/G.T.L. 15 lodged before the learned ACJM, Ghatal by the Forest Range Officer, Ghatal SF Range against P.O.R. the vehicle in question and one Bolero (steel colour) bearing Registration No. WB 68G/1215 was seized by the said Forest Range Officer which has been ordered for the confiscation by the authority under Forest Act.

It is submitted before this Court by learned counsel for the opposite party that the vehicle in question is lying in open sky and is being damaged day by day and the same date order to be returned to its registered owner the opposite party herein before the learned revisional Court below where the petitioner relied on the decision of this Hon'ble Court reported in (2016) 2 C Cr.L.R. (Cal.) 585. It is revealed from the order passed in the said criminal revisional application by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur dated 15.12.2017 that finding no objection against the prayer of the revisionist petitioner, the opposite party herein found no bar to return the vehicle to its registered owner accordingly, ordered directing the respondent, the present petitioner to return the seized vehicle bearing Registration No. WB 68G/1215 seized by the Forest Range Officer, Ghatal with connected papers to its registered owner after proper verification and identification and furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) only before getting the vehicle back with the condition that the petitioner shall have to reproduce the vehicle as and when it may be required by the Court.