A. SATHISHA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed by the petitioner/owner of the vehicle under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2014 in CFR No. 2806 of 2014 in Crime No. 106 of 2014 of Chagalamarri Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379 I.P.C. and Sections 29(1)(b), 20(1)(3) and (1) of Indian Forest Act, 1967, Rule 3 of A.P. Forest Products and Transit Rules and Rule 3 of Red Sandal Wood Possession Rule 1970 under which the petition under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was returned by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Allagadda, Kurnool District. The petitioner shown his address as Mahadevapura Bande, Bangalore.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that the petitioner is the owner of the Toyota Qualis Max Cab vehicle bearing No. KA 04 A 6300 and a case was registered in Crime No. 106/2014 of Chagalamarri Police Station for the offences punishable under the above sections of law for which the owner of the vehicle filed a petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C. praying to release the vehicle. The grounds urged in the said petition that the petitioners vehicle was taken by driver for rent from Bangalore to Schemoga and misused the same by transporting of red sandal by violating forest rules and illegally transporting forest goods, upon which the police seized the vehicle. The learned Magistrate returned the petition on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the offence is under Forest Act and Red Sandal Act.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition stating the learned trial Magistrate is correct in his observation on want of jurisdiction to entertain the application since it is the forest officials having jurisdiction and thus there is nothing for this Court to interfere by sitting in revision and sought for dismissal.