STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. AJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition, the State Government has challenged the order dated 08/02/2012 passed in Criminal Revision No.16/12 by the Sessions Court, Morena.

(2.) SHRI Praveen Newaskar, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the petitioner submits that Section 52 of the Forest Act, 1927 bars the jurisdiction of the Courts under certain circumstances. He relied on a recent judgment of this Court passed in M.Cr.C.No.213/12 [Ram Niwas Vs. Game Range Chambal] decided on 03/02/2012. On the strength of this judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 52 (c) creates a bars on the jurisdiction of the Court as prescribed in it. He further submits that Forest Act is a special Act and once intimation of confiscation proceedings is given to the Magistrate, the jurisdiction of Magistrate is ousted. He further submits that neither Magistrate nor Revisional Court can grant interim custody of vehicles de hors the bar of Section 52(c), which is a complete code in itself. He relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Sujit Kumar Rana reported in (2004) 4 SCC 129. Lastly, it is submitted that even this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot direct for interim release of such vehicle. On the basis of these reasons, he submits that impugned order is bad in law.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, I am unable to hold that the order impugned Annexure-P/1 is bad in law. In the peculiar facts of this case, where the impugned order is passed on the basis of order passed by this Court, I find no reason to interfere in the present petition. If petitioner- State is aggrieved by the order Annexure-P/1, the remedy is elsewhere because the said order is passed on the basis of direction by this Court in M.Cr.C.No. 5492/10.