Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Maurya vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 21 December, 2022
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 10.11.2022
Delivered on 21.12.2022
Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 550 of 2021
Revisionist :- Ramesh Maurya
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 25.01.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar in Case Crime No. 0149 of 2020, under Section 379, 411 IPC, Section 5/26 of Indian Forest Act read with Rule 3/28 of U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 and Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station-Kotwali Lotan, District Siddharth Nagar for releasing of vehicle in question.
3. The relevant facts are that an FIR Case Crime No. 0149 of 2020, under Section 379, 411 IPC, Section 5/26 of Indian Forest Act read with Rule 3/28 of U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 and Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act, was lodged with the allegations that on the basis of confidential information, a pickup carrying 15 pieces of sakhu timber dimensions as given in the FIR was intercepted, of which requisite papers could not be shown by the driver and the same was seized; an application by Ramesh Maurya S/o Hari Ram Maurya was moved for release of Bolero pickup vehicle, seized by the police on the ground that he was the registered owner of that vehicle, the same was given on rent on the request of his neighbour for conveying domestic articles; the applicant strongly suspected that his neighbour Monu s/o Parmatma, in pursuance of a conspiracy, got his vehicle seized, therefore, same may be released in his favour.; the learned A.C.J.M., Siddharth Nagar dismissed the release application on the ground that Sections 52(A) and 52(D) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 do not permit release of a vehicle in respect of which a confiscation proceedings have commenced.
4. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that his vehicle has not been involved in carrying of any illegal timber and that he has been falsely implicated in this case as vehicle is standing in open and will be damaged if not taken care of, hence, same may be released and he will abide by the conditions imposed. It is further contended that commencing of confiscation proceeding is no bar for release of vehicle in favour of registered owner. The revisionist has relied upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Chandra Pal vs. State of U.P. and Another passed in Application U/S 482 No. 1325 of 2021 decided on 12.02.2021. The High Court was, in the above case, dealing with the vehicle, which was seized in a matter arising out of case under Sections 62, 63 and 72 of the U.P. Excise Act. The vehicle was found carrying huge quantity of foreign liquor without requisite papers. The application filed by the registered owner for release of vehicle was rejected by the Magistrate on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Narender; 2014 (13) SCC 100. The Sessions Court in revision, dismissed the revision on the ground that since confiscation proceeding is pending, therefore, the vehicle could not be released and that Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct the release of vehicle. After noting down several judgments, the Allahabad High Court took a view that the Magistrate as well as the revisional court ought to have decided the issue regarding their own jurisdiction for releasing the seized vehicle in exercise of powers under the Code where confiscation proceedings are pending consideration before the District Magistrate under Section 72 of the Excise Act, 1910 but the same was not answered, therefore, the court remitted the matter to the concerned Magistrate to decide release application of the applicant a fresh.
5. In my view no benefit can be given to the revisionist as the court nowhere said that the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to release the vehicle where confiscation proceedings had commenced or has been pending. The only thing the court said that the Magistrate or the revisional court ought to have decided the scope of jurisdiction as in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Narender (supra), the Court only considered the provisions of Delhi Excise Act and not the provisions of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 were under scanner.
6. Section 52(1) as applicable in Uttar Pradesh w.e.f. 02.11.1960 (as amended by U.P. Act 21 of 1960) provides that where it is believed that forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce, together with all tools, boats, carts, vehicles or cattle may be seized by the forest officer or the police officer. Sub-section (2) of Section 52 provided that forest officer or the police officer may detain such boat or vehicle and inspect its papers relating to the goods being transported and that where property is seized the seizure shall be reported to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and if the seizure is in respect of the forest produce which is the property of the State Government, shall also make a report to the authorized officer.
Section 52(A) makes provisions in respect of the forest produce which is the property of the State Government where it is reported to an authorized officer. For convenience, Section 52(A)(1) and (2) are as below:-
"52A. Procedure on seizure--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of any forest produce, which is the property of the State Government, the officer seizing the property under subsection (1) of section 52 shall, without unreasonable delay, produce it together with all the tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other articles used in committing the offence, before an officer, not below the rank of a Divisional Forest Officer, authorised by the State Government in this behalf, who may, for reasons to be recorded, make an order in writing with regard to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property, and in case of tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other articles, may also confiscate them.
(2) The authorised officer shall, without any undue delay, forward a copy of the order made under sub-section (1) to his official superior."
Section 52(D) as applicable in Uttar Pradesh is 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."
7. The above provisions clearly provided that whenever a proceeding of seizure is undertaken under Sections 52(1) and Section 52(A), no other officer, court, tribunal or authority has jurisdiction to deal with its custody, possession, disposal etc. It may be noted that learned C.J.M., Siddharth Nagar dismissed the application for release of the vehicle rightly in the light of the provisions of Section 52(A) and Section 52(D) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The order is correct in law, hence, the revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.12.2022
Vik/-
