Range Forest Officer And Anr. vs Sahebrao Sampatrao Ningot
2003 Latest Caselaw 481 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. None present for the respondent though served. Perused the records.

2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warud and the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Amravati releasing in favour of the respondent a pair of bullocks and the bullock-cart which were seized by the Forest Officers in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter called as "the said Act"). The contention of the petitioners is that the said pair of bullocks and a bullock-cart were seized by the Forest Officer under the reasonable belief that a forest offence has been committed by utilising the said bullock-cart and the bullocks for illegal transportation of the wooden logs without obtaining necessary documentation from the forest authorities for the purpose of such transportation.

3. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioners and perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Courts below have, in fact in exercise of powers under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ordered the release of the bullocks and a bullock-cart which were seized by the forest officers in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the said Act. On perusal of Chapter IX of the said Act as is applicable to the State of Maharashtra pursuant to the amendment of the said Act, brought about by virtue of Act of Maharashtra 7 of 1985, it is apparent that Section 61-G restricts the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts to deal with the property seized under the said Act by the forest officers in certain cases. It provides thus :--

"61-G. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases.--Whenever any timber, sandalwood, firewood, charcoal or any other notified forest-produce which is the property of the State Government, together with any tool, boat, vehicle or cattle used in committing any offence is seized under Sub-section (1) of Section 52, the authorised officer under Section 61-A or the officer specially empowered under Section 61-C or the Sessions Judge hearing an appeal under Section 61-D shall have, and 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, in any officer, Court, tribunal or authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property and any tool, boat vehicle or cattle."

4. Section 61-G of the said Act, therefore, clearly specifies the authorities which can deal with the matter relating to the custody and disposal of the property seized by the forest officers under Section 52(1) of the said Act. Accordingly, the authorised officer under the said Act dealing with the proceedings for confiscation of seized property in terms of Section 61-A of the said Act or the Conservator of Forest exercising the revisional powers under Section 61-C of the said Act or the Sessions Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 61-D of the said Act in relation to the orders passed by the officers under the said Act can adjudicate and decide about the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property seized by the forest officers under Section 52(1) of the said Act. The section specifically bars the jurisdiction of any other Court including the Criminal Court exercising powers under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to deal with such property and to pass any order for disposal or delivery of such property, either during the pendency of the proceedings for confiscation or any time thereafter. Undoubtedly, the question of passing any order by any Court for disposal of the property which has been already confiscated would not arise as once the property is confiscated it would vest in the State.

5. In the case in hand, it is apparent from the record that it is not in dispute that the property in question was seized by the Forest Officer under Section 52(1) of the said Act. Being so, it was for the authorities enlisted under Section 61-G of the said Act to decide about the custody and disposal or delivery of the property in question and no other Court or authority can deal with or decide about the same. Bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 13/98 on 5-7-2002 confirming the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warud, which was passed on 9-1-1998 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1/98 discloses that the release of the property has been ordered in exercise of powers under Criminal Procedure Code and not under Section 61-D of the said Act. The said Revision Application undisputedly did not arise from any of the orders passed by the Forest Officers under the said Act and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the Sessions Judge was exercising the powers under Section 61-D of the said Act while confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Being so, it is apparent that both the authorities below have acted in excess of their jurisdiction and the impugned orders are patently illegal, and cannot be sustained, and are liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. Hence, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders directing release of the property seized by the Forest Officer are hereby quashed and set aside and the rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to the costs.