Orissa High Court
Mirza Ansar Alli Beg vs State Of Odisha on 10 July, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.135 of 2025
Mirza Ansar Alli Beg .... Petitioner
Mr. L. Dash, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha, represented .... Opposite Party
through the Range Officer,
Dalijoda Forest Range, Jajpur
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 10.07.2025
No.
03. 1. Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned order at Annexure-1 passed in connection with CMC
No.62 of 2024 by learned J.M.F.C.(Cog. Taking-I), Cuttack,
whereby, an application Section 457 Cr.P.C. pressed into
service by him seeking release and interim custody of the
seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-04J-0339 in his
favour was declined on the grounds stated therein.
3. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that learned court below was not justified in not directing
immediate release of the seized vehicle in favour of the
petitioner exercising powers under Section 457 Cr.P.C. in view
of the decision of this Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal Vrs.
State of Odisha in Criminal Revision No.52 of 2022 decided
and disposed of on 20th May, 2022. The further submission is
that irrespective of any such confiscation proceeding initiated
and pending, such release of the alleged vehicle should have
been considered considering the decision of this Court in State
of Odisha and another Vrs Kalandi Behera in CRLMC
No.2301 of 2023 disposed of along with CRLMC No.2639 of
2023 by a common judgment dated 18th August, 2023 and
therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-1 is liable to be
interfered with followed by consequential directions issued in
that regard.
4. On the contrary, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State
justifies the decision of learned court below at Annexure-1with
the submission that the vehicle in question is liable to
confiscation in terms of Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act,
1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The further
submission is that the seized vehicle could not have been
released in the interim custody of the petitioner in view of the
initiation of the confiscation proceeding before the Authority
concerned and therefore, the learned court below did not err in
rejecting the application filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. and
hence, the impugned order dated 27th November, 2024 at
Annexure-1 is perfectly justified and in accordance with law
and therefore, not to be disturbed.
5. In course of hearing, Mr. Dash, learned counsel for
the petitioner relies on a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Prasanna Kumar Mohapatra Vrs. State of
Odisha in CRLMC No.1657 of 2024 and an order in CRLMC
No.1336 of 2024 dated 2nd May, 2024 to reiterate release of the
seizure vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The contention is
that the seized vehicle is lying in the custody of the opposite
party since the date of seizure in connection with UD Case
No.49-D of 2023-24. It is contended that the seized vehicle was
to be released even though a confiscation proceeding stands
initiated in OR Case No.96 of 2023-24 before the concerned
authority and as earlier stated, the same is claimed to be
permissible in view of the decision in Arun Kumar Agrawal
(supra). No doubt, the alleged vehicle is liable to confiscation
as per Section 56 of the Act. It is contended by Mr. Ray,
learned AGA for the State that such release is impermissible for
the bar contained in sub-section (3) proviso of Section 56 of the
Act. It is claimed by Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the
petitioner that by the time the application under Section 457
Cr.P.C. was moved, no confiscation proceeding had
commenced. Rather the claim is that the proceeding for
confiscation was initiated much after the seizure of the vehicle
and filling of the application under Section 457 Cr.P.C.
6. In Kalandi Behera (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench this
Court considering the provision, such as, Section 56 of the Act
held and concluded that any such vehicle even subjected to
confiscation proceeding should be allowed to be released
without detention. Such is the view of the Court referring to the
decision of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vrs.
State of Gujarat (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444. In the said
decision, it has been held and concluded that undoubtedly the
proviso of Section 56 (3) of the Act places a bar against release
of the vehicle during pendency of the confiscation proceeding
as it was introduced in the year 2003 but having regard to the
decision in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai (supra), release of it
should be allowed even if the confiscation is pending or an
appeal is carried against any such proceeding. In such view of
the matter and as there has been a decision (supra) by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, to maintain judicial discipline and
propriety and even though, it is assumed that the confiscation
proceeding has been initiated and pending disposal, the Court is
of the conclusion that the seizure vehicle which is lying
exposed to sun and rain should be directed to be released in
favour of the petitioner however subject to suitable conditions
imposed by the learned court below.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8. In the result, the revision stands allowed. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned order at Annexure-1 in CMC
No.62 of 2024 arising out of UD Case No.49-D of 2023-24 by
learned J.M.F.C.(Cog. Taking-I), Cuttack is hereby set aside
with a direction to immediate release of the seizure vehicle
bearing Registration No.OR-04J-0339 in favour of the
petitioner subject to verification regarding its ownership and by
imposing conditions necessary and expedient in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
