RANGE FOREST OFFICER Vs. SAHEBRAO SAMPATRAO NINGOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocate for the petitioner. None present for the respondent though served. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warud and the order passed by the Sessions Judge, amravati releasing in favour of the respondent a pair of bullocks and the bullock-cart which were seized by the Forest Officers in exercise of powers under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter called as "the said Act" ). The contention of the petitioners is that the said pair of bullocks and a bullock-cart were seized by the Forest Officer under the reasonable belief that a forest offence has been committed by utilising the said bullock-cart and the bullocks for illegal transportation of the wooden logs without obtaining necessary documentation from the forest authorities for the purpose of such transportation.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioners and perusal of the record, it is apparent that the courts below have, in fact in exercise of powers under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, ordered the release of the bullocks and a bullock-cart which were seized by the Forest Officers in exercise of powers under section 52 of the said Act. On perusal of Chapter IX of the said Act as is applicable to the State of Maharashtra pursuant to the amendment of the said Act, brought about by virtue of Act of Maharashtra 7 of 1985, it is apparent that section 61-G restricts the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts to deal with the property seized under the said Act by the Forest Officers in certain cases. It provides thus :