STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. B G SHIVANANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein B. G. Shivananda is .said to be the registered owner of an Ambassador Car bearing No.MYQ 8646. On 4-5-1977 at about 3 A.M., Thyamagondlu Police seized the said car presumably acting under sub-sec (1) of S.62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act), on the ground that it was being used for committing offences under Sec.379 IPC read with Sec.86 of the Act, and registered a case in Crime No. 26 77 and reported the fact of seizure to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Dist, presumably acting under sub-sec(3) of S.62 of the Act. Thereupon the respondent.on 10-5-1977 filed an application under Sec.451 of the CrlPC 1973, before the said Magistrate requesting him to- release the car and hand it over to him. The APP however resisted that application and inter alia contended that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to make the order sought for and that in -view of the provisions of S.71A of the Act (inserted by the Karnataka Forest (Second Amendment) Act 1976), it is the authorised officer referred to therein who can make an order of that kind; the argument submitted in support of that contention was that Section 71A of the Act empowers the authorised officer referred to therein to order confiscation of the property seized under S.62(l) of the Act and therefore it is that authorised officer who can make an interim order regarding the custody of the car in question, and not the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, however, repelled that contention and observed thus:

(2.) It was mainly contended that the provisions of S.71A of the Act override the general provisions contained in S.451 CrlPC and hence the learned Magistrate was in error in making the impugned order exercising power under S.451 CrlPC. To appreciate the contention it is relevant to refer to Sections 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 71A of the Act and they read:

(3.) In the result, the impugned order is affirmed and this petition is dismissed.