MANGAL SARJERAO BHARATE Vs. A B BHANGRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN attitude of avoidable confrontation has been taken by the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Palghar, in the matter of seizure of a tempo in respect of a forest offence which was allegedly committed on the 18th of April, 1989. On the said date at about 8. 00 p. m. the said tempo bearing Registration No. MRQ/3305 was seized by the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer. This was on the Ahmedabad National Highway at some place between Virar and Manor. The said tempo was empty at that time. The Driver and the Cleaner of the said tempo came to be arrested. Two other persons were also apprehended from a nearby village. All the four along with the tempo were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Class, Vasai, at 6. 00 p. m. on the 20th of April, 1989 along with a remand application and the learned Magistrate was pleased to remand the four accused to magisterial custody till the 29th of April, 1989.

(2.) ON the 25th of April, 1989, the owner of the tempo, who was not present at the time of the arrest of the aforesaid persons and the seizure of the tempo, applied to the learned Magistrate for return of the tempo. The learned Magistrate, after perusing the said application as also the say filed by the Forest Officer, was pleased to hold that the vehicle in question was not used for commission of any forest offence. Pursuant to the said finding, he directed the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer to return the tempo to the owner on her executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with a condition to produce the same before the Court or before the investigating agency as and when required. This, apparently, the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer did not approve. The owner of the tempo, in pursuance of the said order, executed the necessary bond. She thereafter approached the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer on the 3rd of May 1989 along with the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate and prayed for return of the tempo. The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, however, felt that the learned Magistrate had transgressed upon his jurisdiction in the matter of deciding upon the return of the tempo and refused to hand over the tempo to the owner. This led the owner to apply to the learned Magistrate to initiate proceedings for contempt of Court. The learned Magistrate by his order dated the 4th of May 1989 issued a show cause notice against the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer making the same returnable on the 15th of May 1989. On the same day, the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer appeared before the learned Magistrate and prayed for stay of the order dated the 2nd of May 1989 directing the release of the tempo as he desired to challenge that order in appeal. By an order passed on the same day, the learned Magistrate stayed his order up to the 11th of May 1989. The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer thereafter carried the matter to the Sessions Court, Thane, by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 19 of 1989. In the said Revision Application the impugned order of the learned Magistrate was stayed pending the hearing and final disposal of the Revision Application. By judgement and order dated the 6th of June 1989, the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, was pleased to dismiss the Revision Application mainly on the ground that the impugned order was an interlocutory order and hence the Revision Application was not maintainable. He further gave the following findings, which, to a certain extent, are contradictory in themselves. They are to the following effect :

(3.) AFTER the aforesaid order, the owner had the order of the learned Magistrate directing the delivery of the tempo served upon the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer. Though this order was served on him on the 9th of June 1989, the Forest Officer declined to return the tempo. The owner was, therefore, constrained to move another application on the 12th of June 1989 for contempt. By an order of the same day, the learned Magistrate issued a contempt notice with a direction to the Forest Officer to produce the tempo in Court on the 16th of June 1989. On the 16th of June 1989, the Forest Officer attended the Court of the learned Magistrate along with the tempo. On that day the learned Magistrate directed him to obey the order regarding return of the tempo and adjourned the passing of the further orders on the contempt notice to the 21st June 1989. Despite the aforesaid orders, the Forest Officer refused to deliver the tempo. This led the owner to move a further application on the 22nd of June 1989 for contempt. In the meanwhile, the Forest Officer on the 16th of June 1989 applied for stay of the order of delivery of tempo, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate on the very day. Finding herself in a position of helplessness despite the specific orders for the return of the tempo, the petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 721 of 1989 for a direction against the Forest Officer to return the tempo and for restraining him from taking, steps in the matter of confiscation or forfeiture thereof. Pending this Petition, the State of Maharashtra, instructed by the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 725 of 1989 seeking to challenge the order of the learned Magistrate directing the delivery of the tempo as also the order passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 91 of 1989. An interim relief of stay of the implementation of the impugned order of the learned Magistrate was also prayed for. Rule was issued in both the petitions and an order of status quo was passed pending the hearing and final disposal of these petitions. Since the subject-matters of both the petitions are the same, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgement.