RISHI NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision-petition .is against the order dated 6-4-1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, in Criminal Case No. 688/90, whereby the application of the applicant for releasing his truck on Supurdgi was rejected on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction.

(2.) The truck in question was seized by the Forest Department on 8-12-1990 on account of carrying about 35 stones, which, according to the prosecution is a forest produce. But anyhow, the applicant was able to take away his truck from the custody of the Forest Department. Therefore, on 8-12-1990, the Forest Department lodged a report in the police station, Raisen to this effect, which is Annexure A-1. On this the police registered a case u /S. 353 and 186 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code against the applicant.

(3.) In this case, the applicant, along with other co-accused, was bailed out on 23-12-1990 but according to the applicant, on receiving oral requisition of the truck from the police, the police made a formal seizure of the truck for an offence under sections 353 and 186 read with S. 34, IPC. To this, a further section was also added as section 379, IPC. On the same day, the applicant moved an application u/S.451/457, Cr. P.C. for custody of the truck No. MPD 9007. On the same day also, an application was moved by the Forest Range Officer informing the Court of C.J. M. that a forest offence u / S. 26 of the Forest Act has been registered against the applicant. The vehicle was connected with the forest offence and the confiscation proceedings cannot be initiated against him. It was also submitted that the criminal Court had no jurisdiction in the matter u/S. 52-C of the Forest Act. Therefore, the trial Magistrate by order dated 31-12-1990 rejected the application of the applicant. Aggrieved by this, the applicant had filed a revision petition before the Court of Sessions Judge, Raisen, which was also rejected on 24-1-1991. Thereupon, the applicant filed a writ petition before this Court challenging those orders., The writ petition (M. P. No. 473 / 91) was allowed. The orders dated 31-12-1990 and 24-1-1991 were set aside and it was directed that the Magistrate should give a decision upon the application of the applicant for Supratnama in view of the observations made therein by this Court on 21-3-1991 (Annexure A-6), but again the application of the applicant for giving the truck to him on Supurdgi has been rejected by the impugned order passed by the C.J.M., Raisen. Hence this revision petition.