STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. ANANDMAL SURAJMAL SETHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1806/96 in O.R. No. 67/94-95 of Kodur Range on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate, Rajampet. The facts in brief are as follows :

(2.) The Forest Range Officer, Koduru Range, seized the lorry bearing No. MH31 5382 carrying forest, produce and produced the same before the Divisional Forest Officer, Cudapah. The respondent herein who is said to be the owner of the lorry filed Crl. M.P. No. 1806/94 before the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Rajampet under Section 457, Cr.P.C. for the release of the said vehicle produced before the D.F.O. Cuddapah. The learned Munsiff Magistrate, by his order dated 27-9-1994 ordered for the release of the lorry on condition that the respondent furnish a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 3,00,000.00 issued by a nationalised Bank. The respondent filed Crl. R.P. No. 49/94 challenging the quantum of amount as ordered by the learned Munsiff Magistrate. The learned I Addl. Session Judge, Cuddapah, modified the order of the learned Munsiff Magistrate and directed the respondent to give a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 and also to deposit the R.C. book of the lorry and other documents and with a direction to produce the lorry as and when required by the Court or by the Division Forest Officer. The State preferred Crl. R.C. No. 16/95 against the said order in Crl. R.P. No. 49/94 but subsequently withdrawn by the Public Prosecutor as the same in not filed against the initial order of the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Rajampet, in Crl. M.P. No. 1806 of 1994. The petitioner is now challenging the proceedings of the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Rajampet.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the sized lorry along with forest produce was produced before the Divisional Forest Officer, Cuddapah, and not before the learned Munsiff Magistrate and under Section 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, it is only the Authorised Officer that is Competent either to confiscate the crime vehicle or release the crime vehicle pending investigation in a case and that the learned Munsiff Magistrate or the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge have no jurisdiction to order the release of the crime vehicle. He also relied on the decision of the Division Bench in The Divisional Forest Officer, Warangal (South Division), Warangal v. The District Sessions Judge, Warangal, (1985) 1 APLJ 47. The learned Public Prosecutor also contends that a decision reported A.W.R. 1981 (2) (sic) which has been relied by the learned Munsiff Magistrate is no longer a good law. The learned counsel for the respondent conceded to the legal position after seeing the Division Bench decision cited above.