LAWS(MPH)-1982-10-26

RISHABH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On October 01, 1982
RISHABH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - On the complainant made by the officer concerned of the forest department, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Banda took cognizance of offences under Rules 3 and 27 read with Rule 29 of the: M. P. Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 1961 (made under Section 41, 42 and 76 of the Forest Act) and Section 5 read with Section 16 of the M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 against the accused-applicant. After receiving the summons for his attendance, the accused applicant made an application to the Judicial Magistrate that the forest authority concerned be directed to remove its seal from the saw mill which had been seized at the time of inspection of the accused applicants premises and handed over on Supurdnama to him. The Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 11-1-1982 passed in Criminal Case No. 704 of 1981 rejected the application. On the accused-applicant having filed a revision against the said order, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar vide his order dated 29-3-1982 passed in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 1982 dismissed the same. It is why the accused-applicant has filed the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) A similar matter had come up for consideration before this Court in Gurubaksh Singh v. The State of M. P. and two others1, and this Court for the reasons stated by it in its order dated 30-6- 1982 allowed the application and directed the complainant-State to remove its lock and seal from the saw mill of the accused-applicant of that case. However, as the learned counsel for the State- non-applicant has urged an additional ground in the present case, this Court thinks it proper to deal with it.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the State-non-applicant, the act of putting seal on the saw mill amounted to exercise of dominion over the same by the forest authority concerned and that the same was covered by the power to seize property vested in the said officer under the relevant provisions of the Forest Act and the M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam.