SHEIKH TAUSIF Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order dated 4-7-2001 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No. 82/2001 affirming the order dated 21-5-2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saunsar District Chhindwara in P.O.R. No.8891/2001 rejecting an application filed under Section 457, Cr.P.C. for the release of the vehicle on Supardnama.

(2.) A criminal case for offence under Sections 2, 9, 27, 29, 35(6), 43(3), 46(A), 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and Sections 26 and 52 of The Indian Forest Act has been registered against Abdul Waheed Ansari and Babulal on the allegations that they were fishing in the reservoir of Pench National Park, Chhindwara. The fish so collected were being transported in the Jeep No. MP-28-C/ 0195 which was seized. It is alleged that the seized vehicle belongs to the petitioner. He, therefore, filed an application for release of the said vehicle on Supurdnama under Section 457, Cr. P.C. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saunsar by order dated 21-5-2001 rejected the application on the ground that under the provisions of Section 52-C of (The Indian) Forest Act as amended by M.P. Act No. 25 of 1983, he has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle on Supurdnama as the Forest Officer has started proceedings for its confiscation under Section 52 of [The Indian] Forest Act as amended by the M.P. Act in its application to the State of Madhya Pradesh. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saunsar, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Court of Session. The learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara by the imugned order, affirming the above order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred the present petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) It has been contended by Shri S.L. Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of [The Indian] Forest Act as amended by the M.P. Act (for short the 'Forest Act') are not applicable in the present case as the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short the 'Act of 1972') are applicable because the alleged fishing was performed within the area of Pench National Park. He has, further, contended that no offence under Sections 26 and 52 of the Forest Act is made out in the present case and therefore, the provisions of Section 52 of the Forest Act do not attract. On the other hand Shri Anurag Choudhary, learned Government Advocate for the State has urged that the provisions of the Forest Act are equally applicable and therefore the impugned order is not liable to be quashed.