PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. G MARIMUTHU KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this Revision against the order dated 19-8 1980 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chittoor allowing the Revision Petition filed by the respondent herein. A petition was filed by the respondent under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the return of his lorry bearing Registration No. MYE 3871, which was involved in illicit transport of sandal wood on 3-7-1980. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that he has no power to pass orders regarding the property involved in cases under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 hereinafter referred to as the Act. Against that order, the respondent preferred Revision to the Sessions Court, which allowed the Revi- sion and ordered delivery of the lorry on furnishing security as required by that order. The State has preferred this Revision against that order

(2.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the order of the Sessions Judge is against law because in order to attract the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the lorry ought to have been reduced before the Court but in the instant case the lorry was not produced before the Magistrate and, therefore, the Magistrate could not pass orders under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further sub mitted that having regard to provisions of Section 44 (3) of the A P Forest Act if is the Forest Officer not below the rank of a Forester, who has jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to the disposal of this lorry during the pendency of the proceedings. I regret I cannot accede to the Contentions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Under Secticn 44 (1) of the Act, where there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or forest produce, such timber, or forest produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any such offeree, may be seized by any forest officer or police officer. Sub-section (2) of Section 44 inter alia provides that every officer who seizes the property under this section may make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate. Sub- section 2 A provides where an authorised officer seizes under subsection (1) any timber or forest produce or where any such timber or forest produce is produced before him under sub-section (2) and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof he may order confiscation of the tjmber or forest produce so seized or produced together with all tools. ropes, chains, boats, or vehicles used in committing such offence. Sub section (3) provides that any forest officer not below the rank of a forester, who or whose subordinate has seized any tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles, or cattle under sub-section (1) and where he makes a report of such seizure to the Magistrate under sub-section (2) may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property so released, if and when so required, before the Magistrate Therefore, a reading of sub-section (3) of Section 44 would show that the Forest Officer has also jurisdiction to release the lorry pending enquiry. Sub-section (4) of sec. 44 provides that upon the receipt of any report under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, except where the offence is compounded, take such measures as may be necessary for the trial of the accuseo and the disposal of the property according to law. It could thus be seen that under sub-section (3) it is the Forest Officer, who has got jurisdiction to dispose of the lorry pending proceeding and under sub-section (4) the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to dispose of the lorry pending trial, when the matter has been reported to the magistrate under Sub section (2). Therefore, in the light of these provisions viz, section 44 (2) and (4), the Magistrate does have the jurisdiction when the report of such seizure of the vehicle has been given to the Magistrate. With a view to find out as to whether such a report of such seizure has been made to the Magistrate, sent for the original of D.O.R No.7/80-81 dt.4-7-1980, which was filed in the Court of the Judicial First Clcass Magistrate, Kuppam by the Forest Officer. I find that the seizure of the lorry also has been reported to the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section 44 of the Act- In these circumstances, it will be section 44(5) of the Forest Act that could be invoked by the Magistrate in disposing of the property. While disposing of this property, it was not under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the order would be pas. sed, but the order, shall be passed under section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that when-ever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order aS he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery ot such property to the person entitled to the possession there of, or if such persons cannot be ascertained respecting the custody and production of such property. Therefore, it would thus be seen that it is not necessary that the property should be actually be produced before the Court of the Magistrate, if the seizure is reported to the Magistrate under section 44 (2) of the Act. Then, the Magistrate does have jurisdiction TO dispose of the property not only under section 44 (4) of the Act, but also under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Therefore, I do not see any substance in this Revision filed by the State. Hence, it is dismissed.