Mita Mahananda vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 8342 Ori

Orissa High Court

Mita Mahananda vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 17 September, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           CRLMC No.4454 of 2024
            Mita Mahananda              .....        Petitioner
                                                              Represented By Adv. -
                                                              Manas Kumar Chand

                                           -versus-
            State Of Odisha                       .....             Opposite Party
                                                             Represented By Adv. -
                                                             Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C.

                                  CORAM:
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                MOHAPATRA

                                               ORDER

Order No.                                     17.09.2025

    04.        1.    This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
               /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. By filing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 at Annexure-1 and order dated 29.07.2024 at Annexure-2 to the application. On the ground that while considering the application of the Petitioner for release of vehicle under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. the learned court below have not applied the correct position of law and in doing so the application of petitioner for release of his vehicle has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the vehicle Maruti Baleno Car bearing Regd. No.OD15L-8210 stands

recorded in the name of the Petitioner and was entangled in a forest offence case registered as 2(b)CC Case No.01 of 2024 initiated at the instance of Deogarh Forest Range vide Deogarh OR Case No.123(d) of 2023-24 for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 51(1) of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Initially the vehicle belonging to the Petitioner was seized in connection with the aforesaid forest offence. Thereafter the Petitioner moved an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. which was registered as CMC No.17 of 2024 before the learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh. Learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh, vide order dated 24.04.2024 rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for interim release of his vehicle on the ground that a report has been received from the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Deogarh Range Office to the effect that the confiscation proceeding has already been initiated which has been registered as Deogarh Forest Range case No.36 of 2023-24. Since the confiscation proceeding is pending before the ACF, Deogarh, the learned S.D.J.M., Deoagrh rejected the application for interim release of the vehicle.

5. Being aggrieved by order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh the Petitioner preferred a revision bearing Criminal Revision No.2 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Judge, Deogarh. Learned Sessions Judge, Deogarh after hearing for counsels for both sides vide order dated 29.07.2024 rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for interim release of his vehicle and thereby confirmed the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh dated 24.04.2024 in CMC No.17 of 2024.

6. While assailing the aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the learned court below has

not taken into consideration the fact that at the time of filing of the application Section 457 Cr.P.C. no confiscation proceeding was initiated. It was only during the pendency of the application of the Petitioner under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., that the confiscation proceeding was initiated. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh should have released the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner as there was no embargo on the same. Considering the fact that the confiscation proceeding was not initiated at the time the application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. was presented before the learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh, the learned counsel for the Petitioner assailed the impugned order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh as well as the order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision thereby confirming the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh.

7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the prayer made in the present application. It was contended that the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. could not have been entertained by the learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh as by the time the application came up for consideration it was reported to the learned S.D.J.M., Deoagrh that a confiscation proceeding has already been initiated. Such fact has been clearly indicated in the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 at Annexure-1 to the application. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 ("the Act") contended that there exist a clear statutory embargo with regard to release of the vehicles during the pendency of the confiscation proceeding even on the application of the owner of the property for such release. Further, specifically referring to the

provisions contained in proviso to Sub Section 3 of Section 56, he further argued that learned Revisional Court has also passed a detailed order and analysing entire the legal position with regard to interim release of the vehicle by their confiscation proceeding pending. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the application filed by the Petitioner is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed.

8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the factual background of the present case, further on a close scrutiny of the impugned orders under Annexure-1 and 2 to the present application, this Court observes that the petitioner initially moved an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for interim release of the vehicle which was seized in connection with a forest offence. Such application was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh on the ground that a confiscation proceeding has already been initiated. At this stage, this Court is required to test the validity of order dated 24.04.2024 at Anenxure-1 by applying the provision contained in Section 56 of Odisha Forest Act. On perusal of the proviso to Section 56(3) of the Act it appears that such proviso creates a legal embargo with regard to interim release of the vehicle in favour of the owner of the property, in the event a confiscation proceeding is pending against such vehicle. It is not disputed by the other side that a confiscation proceeding was initiated by the ACF, Deogarh which was reported to the learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh at the time of passing of final order dated 24.04.2024 and such fact has also been indicated in the concluding para of the aforesaid order. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial court has not

committed any illegality in passing order dated 24.04.2024 thereby rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for interim release of his vehicle.

9. The order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh has also been confirmed by the regional authority in Criminal Revision No.2 of 2024 vide order dated 29.07.2024. On a close scrutiny of the order passed by the learned Revisional Authority, this Court observes that a detailed order has been passed by referring to all the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. as well as of the Odisha Forest act, 1972. The learned Revisional Court, after taking note of the provisions contained in the Odisha Forest Act, 1972, particularly the proviso to Section 56(3), has come to a definite conclusion that the vehicle which was seized and allegedly against which a confiscation proceeding was pending, could not have been interimly released in favour of the owner of the vehicle. The learned court has also referred to the judgment of this Court in Sarat Kumar Malu vs. State of Orissa, reported in MANU/OR/0228/1984 as well as other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Revisional Court has also taken note of the principle laid down by this Court in State of Orissa through Divisional Forest Officer Angul vs. Acharya Charan Choudhury reported in (1990) 70 cut LT 371 and finally the learned Revisional Court has come to conclusion that the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh does not suffer from any illegality and accordingly the Revision Petition was dismissed. This Court also on a close scrutiny of the order passed by the Revisional Authority is of the view that the said order does not suffer from any illegality. As such, it does not call for any interference. With regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh should

have taken note of the fact that no confiscation proceeding was pending at the time of filing of the application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., such an argument does not hold in view of the specific provision contained in the proviso to Section 56 (3) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972.

10. Further, considering the grievance of the Petitioner, this Court while disposing of the present application grants liberty to the petitioner to move the competent authority i.e. ACF, Deogarh on the pending confiscation proceeding for passing an appropriate order in accordance with law. In the event any such application has filed by the petitioner, then the learned ACF, Deogarh shall do well to consider such application in accordance with law and dispose of such application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today's order.

11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge

Rubi