Orissa High Court
Prasanna Kumar Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha ....... Opposite Party on 5 May, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1657 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)
Prasanna Kumar Mohapatra ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Opposite Party
For the Petitioner : Mr. Laxmidhar Dash,
Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Satyabrata Panda,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date of Judgment: 05.05.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The petitioner, by invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., has
filed the present CRLMC to explore the following relief:
"(i) issue notice to the Opp. Parties and after perusal of
causes shown, be further pleased to direct the Forest
Range Officer, Jagatsinghpur to release the vehicle,
TATA ACE, bearing Regn. No.OD-21F-4294 in favour
of the petitioner in compliance with direction issued by
the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Crl.
Revision No.06 of 2023, dt. 13.10.2023 and orders by
the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur forthwith and
further the Opp. Parties may be directed to compensate
suitably to the petitioner."
02. The petitioner is the owner of the TATA ACE vehicle
bearing Registration No. OD-21F-4294, which has been seized by
the Forester, Rahama Section in connection with 2(b) C.C. Case
No.3 of 2021. The seizure had taken place on 01.12.2021. The
petitioner moved an application under Section 457 of the Cr. P.C.
for release of the vehicle. Vide order dated 06.06.2023, the
learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur turned down the prayer of the
petitioner on the ground that the confiscation proceeding has
already been initiated by the competent authority. Hence, under
Section 56(3) of the Forest Act, the vehicle cannot be released
during pendency of confiscation proceeding.
03. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated
06.06.2023
passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur, has
filed Criminal Revision No.6 of 2023 in the Court of the learned
Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur. The learned Sessions Judge,
Jagatsinghpur by its detailed judgment dated 13.10.2023, allowed
the Criminal Revision and while reversing the order of the learned
S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur, directed release of the vehicle in subject.
The learned Sessions Judge, in it judgment has observed as under:
"Here this case at hand relates to offences U/s 4,12
& 14 of OT & OFPT Rule 1980 but our Hon'ble Courts
reiterated the said fact by applying the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai
Ambala Desai Vrs. State of Gujarat reported in (2003)
24 OCR (SC) 444, in the case of Ashis Ranjan
Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha and others (W.P (C)
No.31622/2021, decided on 31.01.2022 and in the case
of Arun Kumar Agrawal Vrs. State of Odisha (supra)
while deciding the Crl.Rev.No.52 of 2022 and the same
has been filed under section 401 read with section 397
of Cr.P.C challenging the order dtd.15.1.2022 passed
by the learned SDJM, Birmaharajpur in Crl.Misc.case
(CMC) No.02 of 2022 arising out of 2(b) CC
No.15/2021, where in the Hon'ble Court setting aside
the order of the learned SDJM, Birmaharajpur
direction has been issued for releasing the seized
vehicle in favour of the recorded owner subject to the
conditions laid by the Division of our Hon'ble Court in
the case of Ashis Ranjan Mohanty(supra) Paragraphs
16 (I) to (f). Therefore, there was no bar for the learned
SDJM, Jagatsinghpur to entertain the petition U/s 451
of the Cr.P.C, then, at this juncture, the impugned order
dated 06.06.2023 passed in Misc.Case No.53/2023
U/s.451 of the Cr.P.C by the learned SDJM,
Jagatsinghpur cannot and shall not be justifiable under
law. For which, there is justification under law for
making interference with the said impugned order
passed by the learned Court below through this revision
filed by the petitioner. As such, there is merit in the
revision of the petitioner, the same must succeed.
The revision be and the same filed by the petitioner is
allowed on contest.
The impugned order dtd.06.06.2023 passed by the
learned SDJM, Jagatsinghpur in Cr.Misc.case
No.53/2023 (arising out of 2(b) CC No.03/2023 which
corresponds to OR case No.16 JSP of 2021-22) for an
interim release of the Tata ACE vehicle bearing
registration No.OD-21 F-4294 Engine No.
275ID107GSYS71394 and chasis
MAT445483HZG26282 is hereby set aside.
The learned SDJM, Jagatsinghpur is directed for
interim release of the aforesaid seized Tata ACE
vehicle bearing registration No.OD-21 F-4294 in
favour the petitioner Prasanna Kumar Mohapatra by
imposing suitable conditions just fit and proper as per
the guidelines laid down by our Hon'ble High Courts of
Orissa, passed in W.P(C) No.31622/2021
dtd.31.01.2022-Ashis Ranjan Mohanty(Adv)-vrs-State
of Odisha and others. Accordingly the revision is
disposed of."
04. The aforementioned judgment dated 13.10.2023 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Criminal Revision
No.6 of 2023 has attained its finality.
05. Pursuant to the aforementioned judgment, although the
petitioner has communicated the judgment to the Forest Range
Officer, Jagatsinghpur, but the Forest Range Officer declined to
release the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner has filed CRLMP
No.2483 of 2023 before this court.
06. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated
15.03.2024 disposed of the CRLMP No.2483 of 2023 stating that,
there is no scope for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction in view
of the confiscation order.
07. The petitioner has now approached this Court by filing the
present petition virtually reiterating his prayer as has been made
by him in CRLMP No.2483 of 2023.
08. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
at the time of hearing of the Criminal Revision No.6 of 2023, the
confiscation proceeding vis-à-vis the vehicle in subject was
pending. However, subsequently, the Authorised Officer-cum-
Assistant Conservator of Forest, Cuttack passed the order
confiscating the seized vehicle on 24.02.2024 against which the
F.A.O. No.8 of 2024 has been filed which is pending in the Court
of the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur.
09. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the F.A.O. pending against the order of confiscation dated
24.02.2024 being the continuation of the original proceeding, the
Forest Range Officer, should have released the vehicle in subject
as per the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur
dated 13.10.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.06 of 2023. He
has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 18.08.2023
passed in CRLMC No.2301 of 2023 and CRLMC No.2639 of
2023 Paragraph-9 of the said judgment reads as under:
"9. Taking all these factors into consideration as also
the statutory bar referred to hereinbefore, this Court is
of the considered view that the release of the vehicle if at
all during pendency of the confiscation proceeding or
the appeal can only be subject to the final outcome
thereof and not absolute. In other words, the order for
release of the vehicle shall have to abide by the final
order passed in the confiscation proceeding or the
appeal. Since there is no guarantee of the proceedings
attaining finality within a short period of time, it would
enure to the benefit of no one in keeping the vehicle idle
and stationary allowing thereby its value to depreciate."
10. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in its order
dated 02.05.2024 passed in CRLMC No.1336 of 2024, State of
Odisha & another vs. Sai Chanda Sahu. Relying upon the
aforementioned judgment and on the basis of the fact scenario of
the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there was no option left for the Forest Range Officer, rather to
release the vehicle pursuant to the Judgement dated 13.10.2023 of
the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur awaiting the final
outcome of the FAO No.08 of 2024.
11. I have perused the record of the case and it is found that the
similar prayer made by the petitioner has been turned down by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 15.03.2024
passed in CRLMP No.2483 of 2023. F.A.O. No.8 of 2024 came to
be filed only on 02.03.2024. Although the F.A.O. No.8 of 2024
against the order of confiscation had already been filed on
02.03.2024, but the same was not brought to the notice of this
Court, therefore, the prayer of release of vehicle has been rejected.
Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner while answering
to the pointed question of this court submitted that, in fact, he has
not brought to the notice of this Court regarding pendency of the
F.A.O. No.8 of 2024 against the confiscation order. That perhaps
the reason the CRLMP has been turned down by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court.
12. Be that as it may, the case of the petitioner is directly
covered by the judgment of Kalandi Behera (supra) as well as the
Judgment of this Court in Sai Chanda Sahu (supra). Therefore,
during pendency of the First Appeal against the confiscation
order, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated
13.10.2023 should have been complied with and the vehicle in
subject should have been released on the interim zima to the
petitioner subject to the final outcome of the F.A.O. No.8 of 2024
filed against the confiscation order.
13. In view of the aforementioned, I am inclined to allow the
present petition and direct the Forest Range Officer, Jagatsinghpur
to release the vehicle in subject in favor of the petitioner in
accordance with the judgment dated 13.10.2023 of the learned
Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur on interim zima on the conditions
as deemed fit and proper.
14. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
S.S. Mishra
(Judge)
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 5th May, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 05-May-2025 20:14:56
