Orissa High Court
Enayet Ali Mondal vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 2 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2319 of 2025
Enayet Ali Mondal ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Bibhu Prasad
Mohanty
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
02.09.2025
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the
application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, the
Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court to
quash the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned District
and Sessions Judge, Boudh in criminal revision bearing C.R.P.
No.2 of 2025 whereby the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the
learned J.M.F.C., Kantamal in 2(b)CC Case No.09 of 2024 has
been set aside by the learned revisional court.
4. The factual background of the present case is that the
vehicle of the Petitioner, which was a Tata Truck bearing
Registration No.WB-87-1199, was seized in connection with a
forest case. Accordingly, the Petitioner being the registered
owner of the vehicle made an application before learned
J.M.F.C., Kantamal under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for release
of the vehicle in his favour. The learned J.M.F.C., Kantamal
vide order dated 12.09.2024 allowed the application and
directed for release of the Petitioner's truck. As against the
aforesaid order dated 12.09.2024, the State represented by the
DFO, Boudh Forest Division, Boudh filed a revision before the
learned Sessions Judge, Boudh, which was registered as C.R.P.
No.02 of 2025. The learned revisional court vide order dated
17.05.2025 at Annexure-4 allowed the revision preferred by the
State-Opposite Party and the order passed by the learned
J.M.F.C., Kantamal was set aside. Being aggrieved by the order
passed by the revisional court, the Petitioner has approached this
Court by filing the present application.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of his
argument, submitted that although in view of the provisions
contained in Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, the seized
vehicle can very well be released and such power having been
exercised by the learned J.M.F.C., Kantamal, the learned
Magistrate has not committed any illegality. He further
contended that the State-Opposite Party preferred a revision
petition before the learned revisiaonl court and that the learned
revisional court on an erroneous assessment of the factual
position and by misconstruing the legal position allowed the
revision petition thereby the order passed by the learned
J.M.F.C., Kantamal has been set aside. On such ground, leaned
counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order
passed by the learned revisional court is unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the same should be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
contended that the learned revisional court has not committed
any illegality. Further, drawing attention of this Court to the
order dated 17.05.2025 at Annexuer-4, learned counsel for the
State contended that the learned revisional court has passed a
speaking and reasoned order by referring to the provisions of
law and the judgments applicable to the facts of the Petitioner's
case. In the ultimate analysis, the revisional court has come to a
conclusion by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Udaya Singh, reported in
AIR 2019 SC 1597, that it is the exclusive authority of the
Authorized Officer once the Authorized Officer has initiated the
confiscation proceeding under Section 56(2-a) of the Orissa
Forest Act, 1972. Further, it has been rightly held that such
provision oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section
457 of the Cr.P.C. He further contended that pursuant to the
order passed by this Court, he has obtained instruction from the
Divisional Forest Officer, Boudh Forest Division vide letter
dated 02.09.2025. As per the instruction received, it appears
that a confiscation proceeding has already been initiated and the
Petitioner has been issued with show cause notice. However,
the Petitioner did not appear before Authorized Officer. In such
view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that
the present application is devoid of merit and, as such, the same
should be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful analysis of the factual
background of the present case, further on a close scrutiny of
order dated 17.05.2024 under Annexure-4, this Court is of the
considered view that the learned revisional court has not
committed any illegality. In view of the law laid down in the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uday Singh's case
(supra), the jurisdiction of the criminal courts are oust in view of
the provision contained in Section 56(2-a) of the Orissa Forest
Act, 1972. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain
this application. As such, the same is hereby dismissed.
8. However, while disposing of this present application,
liberty is granted to the Petitioner to approach the Authorized
Officer in the pending confiscation proceeding for release of his
vehicle. In such event, the Authorized Officer shall do well to
pass necessary order strictly in accordance with law, keeping in
view the fact that vehicle which has been seized is lying open to
the natural adversities since 08.05.2024.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
Signed by: DEBASIS AECH
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 04-Sep-2025 12:52:28
