The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ratan Singh Gour
2022 Latest Caselaw 13486 MP

                                                       W.P. No.3950/2015
                                  1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
               ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2022
            WRIT PETITION No. 3950 of 2015
       BETWEEN:-
       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
       THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
       AND   SUB    DIVISIONAL OFFICER
       (TERRITORIA)    FOREST, DIVISION
       BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                     .....PETITIONER

       (BY MS. G.K. PATEL- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

       AND
       RATAN SINGH GOUR S/O DHANLAL
       GOUR R/O MOTIPURA TAH. SHYAMPUR
       DISTT. SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
       (BY SHRI ALOK VAGRECHA- ADVOCATE )

      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court

passed the following:

                               ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

challenge has been made to the order dated 20.01.2015 passed in W.P. No.3950/2015

Revision No.66/2015 filed under Section 52B of the Indian Forest

Act, 1927 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Act") by the 5th

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (M.P.), whereby the Revision has

been allowed.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the JCB

machine belonging to the respondent was seized by the petitioner on

14.05.2013 while it was found leveling the forest land. The Range

Officer made over the matter with recommendation for confiscation

to the authorized officer. The authorized officer confiscated the said

JCB machine. The respondent filed a statutory appeal before the

authorized officer/ Conservator of Forest, Bhopal, who vide order

dated 07.08.2014 rejected the appeal of the respondent. Thereafter,

the respondent preferred a Revision under Section 52B of the Act

before the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. Vide the

impugned order dated 20.01.2015, the said Revision was allowed in

the favour of the respondent on the ground that the owner of the JCB

machine had no knowledge that the same is being operated on the

forest land. Hence, this petition.

W.P. No.3950/2015

3. Learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State

submitted that the trial Court erred in releasing the JCB machine,

inasmuch as as per clause-C of sub-Section 4 of Section 52 of the

Act, the respondent has to show that he had taken all precautions

against the use of his JCB machine in illegal activity. The learned

Sessions Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the statement of

the respondent before the authorized officer was not enough for

satisfaction of the authorized officer to hold that the respondent has

taken all reasonable steps and there was no connivance on his part.

The order deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the

prayer and submitted that the order passed by the Sessions Court is in

accordance with law since the authorities had failed to establish that

the owner of JCB machine in question had any knowledge that the

same was likely to be used in the forest land in contravention of the

provisions of the Act. The order passed by the Sessions Court is

based on the evidence on record, therefore, no interference is called

for. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment W.P. No.3950/2015

of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Forest Conservator Vs.

Sharad Ramchandra Kale as reported in (1998) 1 SCC 48.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Even otherwise, the Apex Court in the case of Sundar Bhai

Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283

has laid down the procedure for disposal of the valuable items like

currency, liquor, vehicle and narcotics drugs and has held as under :-

"Powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail; and

4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles."

W.P. No.3950/2015

7. On bare reading of the said dictum laid down by the Apex

Court, section 451 of Cr.P.C. clearly empowers the court to pass

appropriate order with regard to such property, such as

"(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial;

(2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it think necessary;

(3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same."

8. The Apex Court in the case of Sundar Bhai (supra) has

further held as under :-

"However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the W.P. No.3950/2015

rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly."

9. Apex Court in the case of General Insurance Council and

others Vs. State of A.P. And others reported in 2010 AIR (SCW)

2967 has held as under :-

"15. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road. To avoid all this, apart from the aforesaid directions issued hereinabove, we direct that all the State Governments/ Union Territories/Director Generals of Police shall ensure macro implementation of the statutory provisions and further direct that the activities of each and every police stations, especially with regard to disposal of the seized vehicles be taken care of by the Inspector General of Police of the concerned Division/Commissioner of Police of the concerned W.P. No.3950/2015

cities/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district."

10. In view of the aforesaid pronunciations by the Apex Court as

well as looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court

finds no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Sessions

Court. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to cost.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Shanu

Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2022.10.13 15:33:14 +05'30'