STATE OF M P Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has preferred this revision against the order dated 11-10-1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, in Criminal Revision No. 74 of 1990, whereby the truck No. UTP 6276, seized by the Police, Pichhore, carrying 80 bags of tendu leaves, without transit pass, was directed to be released on Supurdgi.

(2.) Brief facts leading to this revision are these. On the information received that the truck No. UTP 6276 is carrying 80 bags of tendu leaves, a forest produce, without transit pass, the Police seized the truck on 15-8-1990, at 12-30 p.m., seizure memo was prepared, the driver Rakesh was also taken to custody, a case was registered at Crime No. 139 of 1990 under Section 379, IPC and Sections 5, 7 and 8 of the M. P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1964, for short, '1964 Adhiniyam, of Police Station Pichhore, After the seizure of the truck, the Police vide letter dated 17-8-1990 intimated the Range Officer, Shivpuri, to take action to confiscate the truck as an offence under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, for short, the 'Forest Act' was committed and sent the copies of F. I. R. and seizure memo. The Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Shivpuri, on 20-8-1990, sent an intimation to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the seized property, that is truck No. UTP 6276 and 80 bags of tendu leaves. The respondent was noticed of the initiation of the said proceedings for confiscation, but he did not appear on 15-10-1990 in spite of notice dated 1-10-1990. Therefore, the Deputy D. F. O. proceeded ex parte and found proved an offence Under Sections 41 and 52 of the Forest Act as also under Section 5 of the 1964 Adhiniyam. In-between, after initiation of the proceedings, the respondent filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the 'Cr. P.C.', in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pichhore, for the custody of the seized truck. After the report of the Range Officer, the application was rejected as the truck was seized under Section 52 of the Forest Act, holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to direct the custody of the truck. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, also directed that a letter be issued to the Range Officer that the seized property was also case property of the offence under Section 379, IPC, therefore, till the decision of the case, the case property be not disposed of. Aggrieved of this order, the respondent preferred a revision. The Sessions Judge while allowing the revision, observed that it is doubtful whether the truck is liable to confiscation or not and, thus directed the release of the truck on Supurdgi of Rs. 50,000.00 to the respondent. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Shri M. K. Jain, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State and Shri Anil Mishra, Counsel for the respondent were heard. Papers produced relating to the initiation of the proceedings for confiscation against the respondent and of confiscation were perused.