UMASHANKAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This is a criminal revision under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 4-7- 2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Piparia, District Hoshangabad.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are these: The tractor and trolley No. M.P. 05-A-9268 and M.P. 05-A-9269 have been seized by the Forest Department of Game- Range, Matkuli, Pachmadhi Road, Piparia, as the Sagon log were being allegedly transported by the said vehicles. The case was registered as FOR 2205/17 dated 18-5-1997 for the purpose of confiscation of the seized tractor and trolley as well as the wooden log. The Director, National Park, Pachmarhi has passed an order under Section 39(1) (d) of the wild Life Protection Act (For short The Act) as amended by the Act No. 44 of 1999, confiscating the tractor and trolley and wooden log in favour of the State Government. Against the said order, a writ petition was flied by the petitioner which was ultimately heard by the Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3769/97 (Umashankar Bhargava v. State of M.P.) The Full Bench of this Court held that mere seizure of any property including vehicles on the charge of commission of an offence under the Act would not make the property to be of the State Government under Section 39(1) of the Act. It was further held that such property including the vehicle seized on accusation or suspicion of commission of an offence under the said Act can, on relevant ground and circumstances, be released by the Magistrate pending trial in accordance with Section 50(4) read with Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has also filed an application before the learned trial Court for getting the tractor and trolley I released on Supurdnama. It was reported by the Government Advocate before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that the State intended to file SLP before the Supreme Court against the said order of this Court and it was also reported by the Counsel for the petitioner that a contempt petition was also being flied against the Forest Authority, the learned trial Judge, therefore postponed the consideration of the application till the matter is decided either by this Court in contempt proceedings or by the Supreme Court in the S.L.P. Being aggrieved by the said order postponing the consideration, the present petition has been flied.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that no SLP has yet been flied before the Supreme Court against the order of this Court in W.P. No. 3769/1997. It is also reported by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no contempt application has been flied by the petitioner before this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that it was not proper on the part of the learned Magistrate to postpone the consideration of the application as the order of this Court in the above writ petition is absolutely clear and binded on both the parties.