Raja Ram Singh vs State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3613 Jhar

                                          1

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                       ----

W.P.(Cr.) No. 202 of 2020

----

Raja Ram Singh, s/o Sahdeo Singh, aged about 55 years, r/o Nimadih, Churchu, Hehegarha, PO, PS and District -Hazaribagh ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.State of Jharkhand

2.Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, PO, PS and District-Bokaro

3.Officer in charge, Mahuatand, Police Station, PO and PS-Mahuatand, District-Bokaro

4.Confiscating Officer cum D.F.O, Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro, PO, PS and District-Bokaro ...... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, GA-V

----

8/27.09.2021 This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondent authorities to release the truck of the petitioner being registration no.JH 02J 0151, which was seized by the police in connection with Mahuatand P.S.Case No.14/2019, G.R.No.315/2019 registered under sections 379/413/414/34 of the I.P.C, section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 30(II) of Coal Mines Act, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat.

3. Mr. Sidhartha Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on 02.04.2019, the truck of the petitioner was seized by Mahuatand Police and pursuant to such seizure F.I.R was instituted being Mahuatand P.S. Case No.14/2019. From perusal of F.I.R it appears that the truck of the petitioner was alleged to have been involved in illegal transportation of coal as such the foresaid case was instituted in which the truck of the petitioner was seized by the police. After institution of the F.I.R. the petitioner moved before the trial court in Misc. Cri. Application No.800/2020 praying therein to release his truck. The learned court below vide order dated 25.02.2020 was pleased to allow the application for release of the truck of the petitioner and after verifying the genuineness of the document in connection with the truck,

directed to release the truck in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that by this release order the petitioner was directed to file indemnity bond of Rs.5,50,000/-, which has been submitted by the petitioner before the court below on 27.07.2020. He further submits that one petition is received by the court by respondent no.2. After the release order, the petitioner moved before the respondent no.2 for release of the vehicle in question. The respondent no.3 refused to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the order was passed by the learned trial court which was incumbent upon the respondents to release the vehicle. According to him, there is no intimation of confiscation proceeding to the petitioner as well as the concerned court and that is why the order is required to be complied. He further draws the attention of the Court to the order dated 17.03.2020 contained in Annexure-A to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State. By way of referring this order, he submits that the said notice dated 17.02.2020 was received in the concerned court on 17.03.2020. According to him, Section 52 (C) of the Forest Act has not been effected prior to receiving of the letter intimating confiscation in the court concerned. He further submits that in paragraph no.8 of the rejoinder he has stated that the petitioner has also not received any intimation of confiscation. On this ground, he submits that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may direct to release the vehicle in question.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sarkhel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that it has inadvertently not informed the court about the confiscation proceeding. He submits that the report was submitted by the police on 10.02.2020 before the concerned court and that report was incomplete, in view of the fact that the information of commencement of confiscation proceeding has not been provided by the police inadvertently. He further submits that by letter dated 17.02.2020 intimation was already sent to the concerned court as well as the petitioner with intimation to the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro for putting forth the prosecution version vide letter no.338 dated 17.02.2020. He submits that when it came to the knowledge of the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro vide letter no.338 dated 17.02.2020, the Officer Incharge of Mahuatand Police Station submitted a letter to the court of learned S.D.J.M, Bermo at Tenughat vide letter no.406/2020 dated 11.09.2020 about intimation that inadvertently the junior officer has not intimated about the confiscation

proceeding. He further submits that on perusal of the order dated 17.03.2020 contained in Annexure-A to the reply, it is crystal clear that the concerned court has received the letter no.337 dated 17.02.2020 and it was placed before the concerned Presiding Officer on 17.03.2020. According to him, the letter was received earlier and it was placed on that day that is why it was recorded on 17.03.2020. He further submits that the petitioner has not disclosed at paragraph no.8 of his rejoinder that this letter has been received by the petitioner. He only denied that the petitioner was not knowing about this letter. He further submits that this Court is sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can pass any corrective order. He submits that in view of the fact that Section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act bars the release of the vehicle.

5. In view of the above fact, the Court has perused the materials on record. It is an admitted fact that on 25.02.2020 the release order has been passed by the concerned court. The petitioner has already submitted the bond as directed, the vehicle in question has not been released in favour of the petitioner. As the confiscation proceeding has been initiated the same was intimated by letter dated 17.02.2020 it may be that it was not brought to the knowledge of the concerned court about receiving of that letter, however, it is apparent by order dated 17.03.2020 that the order dated 17.02.2020 was intimated to the court. It is also an admitted position now that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated with regard to the truck in question. Section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act bars jurisdiction of the court on certain circumstances. For the sake of brevity, section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act is quoted hereinbelow:

"52.C. Bar of jurisdiction of Court, etc. in certain circumstances-(1) On receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52 about intimation of proceedings for confiscation of property by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property which is subject matter of confiscation, has been made, no Court, Tribunal or Authority (other than the authorized officer, Appellate Authority and Revision Authority referred to in section 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force."

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered this aspect of release of the vehicle in the case of "State of W.B and Others v. Sujit Kumar Rana", (2004) 4 SCC 129, whereby the Apex Court has held that

the High Court has exceeded the jurisdiction in release of the vehicle in question under section 482 Cr.P.C. Once the confiscation proceeding is initiated in terms of Section 59-G of the Act, the jurisdiction of the criminal court in this behalf stands excluded. Paragraph no.31 and 41 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

"31. The said authority before passing a final order in terms of Section 59-A(3) of the Act is required to issue notice and give opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Unless such a notice is issued, the confiscation proceeding cannot be said to have started. Once, however, a confiscation proceeding is initiated; in terms of Section 59-G of the Act, the jurisdiction of the criminal court in this behalf stands excluded. The criminal court although indisputably has the jurisdiction to deal with the property which is the subject- matter of offence in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but once a confiscation proceeding is initiated, the said power cannot be exercised by the Magistrate.

41. In view of the aforementioned binding precedents, we are of the opinion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in releasing the vehicles in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

7. It is an admitted fact that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated and the intimation to that effect was issued by letter no.338 dated 17.02.2020. Merely due to any reason not receiving of the said letter by the concerned court in time or by the petitioner cannot be said that the confiscation proceeding was not there on the day when the order dated 25.02.2020 was passed by the concerned court. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is having the jurisdiction to correct any illegality.

8. In view of the fact that confiscation proceeding has been initiated, this Court is not inclined to pass any positive order with regard to release of the vehicle in question, however, the petitioner is set at liberty to move before the confiscating court for such prayer.

9. If the petitioner moves before the confiscating authority with such prayer, the confiscating officer shall consider the entire aspect of the matter and will pass the order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks.

10. With the above observation and direction, the instant petition [W.P.(Cr.) No. 202 of 2020] stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/,