Telangana High Court
Degavath Manjula vs The State Of Telangana And Other on 1 July, 2022
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 26891 of 2022
ORDER:
Questioning the action of the respondents in seizing the
petitioner's JCB vehicle bearing No.TS05 FG 9361 in
POR.No.35/01 (2021) dated 14.05.2022, the petitioner has
filed the present Writ Petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in
spite of the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No.25067 of 2022, the learned Magistrate has
returned the Crl.M.P.No.240 of 2022 in POR.No.35 of
01(2021) filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle in
question on two grounds viz., the subject vehicle was not
produced before him and he does not have the jurisdiction to
pass any order for release of the vehicle in question as per the
decision reported in Arun Bacher v. State of Telangana1.
When queried by this Court, the learned Government
Pleader, on instructions, has stated that the official respondents
2018(3) ALD 549
AAR, J
at the time of producing the vehicle in question before the
Magistrate concerned have not filled the necessary Forms
appropriately. Therefore, there was no recording in respect of
the production of the vehicle in question before the Magistrate
concerned. That the official respondents will submit the duly
filled forms before the Magistrate concerned, for recording the
production of the vehicle.
A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner shows
that this Court vide order dated 14.06.2022 in Writ Petition
No.25067 of 2022 has directed the petitioner to file an
appropriate application before the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class/Junior Civil Judge, Nidamanoor, for release of the
vehicle in question, and the learned Magistrate/Junior Civil
Judge to pass necessary orders on the petitioner's application
for release of the vehicle in question. Thereafter, the petitioner
has filed Crl.M.P.No.240 of 2022 in POR.No.35 of 01(2021)
before the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class at
Nidamanoor, for release of the vehicle in question. Thereupon,
AAR, J
the learned Magistrate has returned the Crl.M.P.No.240 of
2022 in POR.No.35 of 01(2021) vide order dated 20.06.2022,
in which, the learned Magistrate has observed that the JCB
involved in the crime was not produced before him and he
does not have any jurisdiction to release the vehicle in
question, which was seized in connection with the offences
under both the Acts, viz., the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 and
the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Having regard to the statement made by the learned
Government Pleader that the official respondents will file the
appropriate form before the Magistrate concerned for
recording the production of the vehicle, the first objection with
regard to the non-production of the vehicle is no longer
available.
That insofar as the other ground for rejection of the
release of the vehicle in question is concerned, the learned
Magistrate relying on the judgment passed by this Court, has
held that the Magistrate Court does not have the jurisdiction to
AAR, J
pass order for release of the confiscated vehicle if the offences
relate to both the Forest Act and the Wildlife Protection Act.
As it is now stated by the learned Government Pleader that the
official respondents are going to file the necessary
documents/forms for recording the production of the vehicle
before the Magistrate concerned, the contention of the learned
Magistrate not having the jurisdiction to release the vehicle
produced before him is no longer available to the said
Magistrate. Once the vehicle is produced before the learned
Magistrate by the forest officials irrespective of the fact that
the offence committed under the Forest Act or Wildlife
Protection Act or both, it is only the Magistrate Court that has
the jurisdiction to pass necessary order for release of the
vehicle. Even the Arun Bacher's case (1 supra) supports the
above contention.
Para 24 of the Arun Bacher's case (1 supra) reads as
under:
AAR, J
"24. Thus so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
concerned, because of the specific provision under Section 44
of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, only the Forest Officials got
jurisdiction either to confiscate or to release including for any
interim custody and the Magistrate Court concerned has no
jurisdiction either under Section 451 or 457 Cr.P.C. for
ordering interim custody, once the vehicle seized produced
before the Forest Officials and not produced before the
Magistrate. Needless to say, in case of offence involving
exclusively LP Act, the Magistrate got jurisdiction to pass
orders for custody and disposal by virtue of the apex Court's
expressions in Madhukar Rao's case (supra); J.K. Johnson's
case (supra), with reference to Section 39 read with 50 of the WLP
Act."
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the same in
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and another v. J.K.
Johnson and others2, relevant portion of the same reads as
under:
"40. ......Since the items were seized in exercise of the power
under Section 50(1)(c), the seized property has to be dealt with
by the Magistrate under Section 50(4) of the 1972 Act. The
respondent Nos.1 to 3 must accordingly apply to the concerned
Magistrate for the return of seized items who obviously will
consider such application according to law."
In view of the above, having regard to the fact that the
vehicle in question was not produced before the learned
2012(1) ALD (Crl.) 675 (SC)
AAR, J
Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidamanoor, the official
respondents are directed to produce the vehicle in question
along with all necessary documents before the learned Judicial
Magistrate of I Class, Nidamanoor, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably, within one week. On such production of
the vehicle in question, if any application for release of the
vehicle in question is filed by the petitioner herein, the
Magistrate concerned shall pass orders for release of the
vehicle in question in accordance with law imposing such
conditions as he may deem fit and proper.
With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed
of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J
1st JULY, 2022.
Note: issue c.c. today.
kvni
