Mahendra Prasad Ram vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 4549 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
RESERVED
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2227 of 2013
 
Revisionist :- Mahendra Prasad Ram
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Prasad,B.K. Pandey,Sher Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J.

The revisionist Mahendra Prasad Ram has made the following prayers:-

".....to allow this revision and may graciously be pleased to set aside the judgment/ order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the revisional court Special Judge (E.C. Act)/ Additional Session Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 48 of 2013, State of U.P. vs. Mahendra Prasad Ram in Case Crime No. 175/2012 under Sections 9/49(1) A/ 49(II)51/52 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, under Sections 429/379/411/120B I.P.C., under Section 10/15 Animal Cruelty Act and under Section 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, Police Station- Attarsuiya, District- Allahabad.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to release the said Vehicle Tata Indigo No. U.P.64 R-1963 in favour of the registered owner Mahendra Prasad Ram in compliance of release order dated 9.1.2013 and 21.1.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Allahabad in Case Crime No. 175 of 2012, Police Station- Attarsuiya, District- Allahabad."

The matrix of the facts in narrow compass are as follows:-

"On 14.12.2012 at about 12:10 p.m., Sub-Inspector Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, Out Post- Meerapur, Police Station- Attarsuiya, District- Allahabad along with his police team intercepted the car No. U.P.64 R-1963 (Tata Indigo) and recovered two full size skins of Leopard or Panther near Gol Park, Attarsuiya, District- Allahabad. On interrogation, it was found that the name of car driver was Mahboob S/o Saleem R/o Gurai, Chaska Tola, Police Station- Robersganj, Sonbhadra. Two other persons travelling on vehicle fled away. Car driver revealed his name and informed that they have come to sell the skin of Leopard or Panther from Sonbhadra. The case was registered under Sections 9/49(1) A/ 49(II) 51/52 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and under Section 429 I.P.C. Car driver/ accused person Mahboob was arrested. The skin of the Leopard was sealed separately and a separate report was sent to the Range Forest Officer, (City), Allahabad. Later on, applicant Mahendra Prasad Ram moved an application for release of the aforesaid vehicle Registration No. U.P.64 R-1963 in Case Crime No. 175 of 2012 under Section 429 I.P.C. and under Sections 9/49(1) A/ 49(II) 51/52 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The release application was allowed vide order dated 9.1.2013 by the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Court No.10, Allahabad."

Aggrieved by this order dated 9.1.2013 (supra) of the learned A.C.J.M., Court No.10, Allahabad, State of U.P., the revisionist preferred criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad which was admitted on 28.1.2013 and operation of the impugned order dated 9.1.2013 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Court No.10, Allahabad in Case No. Nil of 2012 in Case Crime No.175 of 2012, by which release application of opposite party has been allowed by the court below, it was ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad "Operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed, if not already executed."

This criminal revision No.48 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs. Mahendra Prasad Ram) was finally decided by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad by it's order dated 30.7.2013 by which the criminal revision was allowed and impugned order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Court No.10, Allahabad in release application No. Nil of 2012 State of U.P. vs. Mahendra Prasad Ram was set-aside.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the following rulings:-

"State of West Bengal vs. Sujit Kumar Rana LAWS (SC)-2004-1-110

State of M.P. vs. Madhukar Rao LAWS (SC)-2008-1-66

Ravi Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and another - Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2191 of 2007 (2007) RD-AH 3208 (26 February 2007)"

Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that initially the case was not registered under Indian Forest Act, 1927, hence it's provisions do not apply.

In the counter affidavit of K.S. Yadav, Range Forest Officer, Allahabad, it is mentioned that under Section 52 (A) (1) of Indian Forest Act, 1927, the opposite party no.2 issued notice dated 19.6.2013 to vehicle owner Mahendra Prasad Ram calling upon him to submit his explanation within a period of one month but he refused to receive the notice. Thereafter, vide official letter dated 1951 T.C./22/10 dated 29.1.2014 a second notice was issued to vehicle owner in which it was stated specifically that the vehicle owner should appear on 12.2.2014 in the office of Prabhagiya Vaniki Sa. Va. Van Prabhag, Minto Park Allahabad at 11:00 A.M. and submit his defence/ explanation but in pursuance to aforesaid notice the aforesaid owner did not appear as indicated in the notice.

Similarly, notices dated 5.3.2014 and 1.9.2015 were issued to the vehicle owner to appear in the office of O.P. No.2 on dates 19.3.2015 and 15.9.2015 respectively to submit his explanation but the vehicle owner did not appear on the dates fixed.

Thus, it is evident that authorised officer/ Divisional Director Social Forestry Division, Allahabad, initiated proceedings under Section 52-A of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and has given ample opportunity to the vehicle owner which he did not avail. Section 52-D of Indian Forest Act, 1927 in verbatim is quoted as below:-

"52-D. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases. - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, whenever any forest produce belonging to the State Government together with any tool, boat, vehicle cattle, rope, chain or other article is seized under sub-section (1) of Section 52, the authorised officer under Section 52-A or the State Government under Section 52-B shall have jurisdiction, to the exclusion of every other officer, court, Tribunal or authority, to make orders with regard to the custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property. [Vide U.P. Act 1 of 2001, S.7 (w.e.f. 16-4-2001)]."

Section 2(4) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 in verbatim is quoted as below:-

"2. Interpretation clause. - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-

(4) "forest-produce" includes -

(a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say:-

timber, charcoal, caoutchouc, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds, kuth (Ins. by Act 26 of 1930, S.2) and myrabolams, and

(b) the following when found in, or brought from a forest, that is to say:-

(i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce not hereinbefore mentioned, of trees,

(ii) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts or produce of such plants,

(iii) wild animals and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax, and all other parts of produce of animals, and

(iv) .................."

The meaning of the Authorised Officer as given under Section 2 Interpretation clause of Indian Forest Act, 1927 in State Amendments of Uttar Pradesh is as follows:-

"Uttar Pradesh.- In its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, in Section 2, for clause (1) the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:-

(1) "authorised officer" means an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 52-A"

and in Section 52-A of Indian Forest Act, 1927, procedure of seizure has been described.

As discussed above, Authorised Officer/ Divisional Director Social Forestry Division, Allahabad in exercise of power vested under Section 52-A(1) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 has initiated the procedure of seizure.

Following judgment of Supreme Court is relevant in the present context:-

"State of West Bengal and others vs. Sujit Kumar Rana (2004) 4 SCC 129

Criminal Appeal Nos. 453 and 454 to 459 of 1997

decided on 20.01.2004"

Hence, impugned judgment and order order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in Criminal Revision No. 48 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs. Mahendra Prasad Ram) suffers from no illegality or infirmity and therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage.

Resultantly, in view of the above analysis, this instant criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

The criminal revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 27.7.2016

Atmesh