M ABBAS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 27-2-1980 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, in Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 3/80 on the file of his Court whereby he has set aside the order dated 15-2-80 passed by the J. M. F.C., releasing the vehicle seized under S. 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act') in favour of the petitioner. It is alleged that on 8-2-1980 when the lorry bearing No. GDT 8810 belonging to the petitioner wag engaged in transporting fire-wood in the Mudigere Range, the Range Officer, Mudigere, on duty, seized the same together with the fire-wood said to be Government property being illicitly transported in the said lorry, and later on produced the lorry together with the load of the firewood before the Divisional Forest Officer, Chikmagalur division, as provided under S. 7 LA of the Act for confiscation. He also thereafter sent a First Information Report regarding the illicit transportation of the fire-wood in form No. 17 as prescribed under Rule 65(1) of the Karnataka Forest Manual (hereinafter referred to as 'the Manual') to the Additional J.M.F.C., Chikmagalur.

(2.) When the matter was still under investigation, on 12-2-1980, the petitioner, who is admttedly the registered owner of the lorry made an application under S. 451 r/w S. 457 Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate requesting for release and interim custody of the same on the ground that, when the lorry in question was parked in front of the Divisional Forest Office, the Range Forest Officer had seized the same on the false allegation that it was engaged in illicit port of the fire-wood belonging to the Government and if the lorry was not released and entrusted to his custody, it was likely to be damaged. On the Senior Asst. Public Prosecutor endorsing on the application so made by the petitioner that the lorry in question was no more required for the investigation and it could te released in favour of the petitioner after taking adequate security to, produce the same before the Court whenever required, the learned Magistrate proceeded to make an order releasing the lorry and entrusting the same to the custody of the petitioner on his furnishing surety in a sum of Rs. 50.000 on condition that the same shall be produced before the Court or before the Divisional Forest Officer, Chikmagalur, as and when required. Being aggrieved by the said order, when the State by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chikmagalur, Dn., approached the Sessions Judge in, Crl. "Rev. Petn. "No. 3\80, the learned Sessions Judge relying on the decision in Ravindra Patali v. State of Karnataka (1), since no inquiry or trial was pending and the property was also not produced before the Court, the seizure being under Section 62 of the Act by the Range Forest Officer and the report made to the Magistrate being under S. 62(3) of the Act, neither the provisions of S. 451 Cr.P.C., nor the provisions of S. 457 was applicable to the facts of the case and the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make such an order regarding the release and interim custody of the vehicle and set aside the order made by the Magistrate. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Cpurt in revision. Mr. M. Gopalakrishna Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued in the first place that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision.

(3.) According to him, the order passed by the Magistrate regarding the interim 1. (1978) 2 Kar.L.J. 462, transcustody under S. 451 Cr.P.C., was an interlocutory qrder and the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 397 Cr.P.C, operated as bar against the exercise of the reyisional powers in relation to such interlocutory order and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, being without jurisdiction deserved to be set aside. Secondly, he argued, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the Magistrate had np jurisdiction to make an order regarding the release and custody of the vehicle seized under S. 62 of the Act, and the provisions of S. 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., were not attracted to the facts of the case, was wholly erroneous. He argued further, when a report regarding the seizure, as provided under S. 62(3) of toe Act, is made to the Magistrate, thr Magistrate gets the jurisdiction to make any order regarding the disposal of the property seized under S. 62 of the Act. It was his contention, on receipt of the report under sub-section (3) of S. 62, as provided under S. 64 of the Act, the Magistrate gets the jurisdiction to take all such measures as may be necessary for the disposal of the property according to law and the expressions "according to law" used in S. 64 of the Act, in the context in which they have been used, have reference only to the provisions of the Crl. P. C. and as such the provisions of S. 451 and 457 were attracted and the Magistrate had every jurisdiction to make an order regarding the release and interim custody, and the order of the Sessions Judge, therefore, being illegal deserved to be set aside and that of the Magistrate deserved to be restored. In support of this contention, he strongly relied on the decision in State of Karnataka v. Shivananda, (1977) 2Kar.L.J. 452. Mr. B. R. Nanjundaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent-State of Karnataka, on the other hand, argued supporting the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ravindra Patali v. State of Karnataka (1). Taking the first contention of Mr. Gopalakrishna, it appears, there is not much substance in the same. What is an interlocutory order has not been defined. This was also one of the contentions raised before the learned Sessions Judge, and he has rightly rejected the contention after discussing the case law on the point. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC. 47. their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: