LAXMAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr. PC has been filed challenging the order dated 11-5-04, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Devas (M. P.), in Criminal Revision No. 77/04.

(2.) ONE escort tractor with 22 pieces of teak-wood and two motor cycles was seized by the police Tonk-Khurd. The tractor with 22 pieces of teak-wood and motor cycles is said to be seized from the possession of the applicant Laxman s/o Sukhlal. A criminal case under Section 379 of IPC, sections 26, 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act and Section 5 (1) of Vanopaj vinirdipt Vyapar Adhiniyam was registered by the police and the case with seized property was entrusted to the Forest Department. The Forest Officer seized the property and initiated proceedings to confiscate the seized properties. The applicant filed an application under Section 457 of Cr. PC to get interim custody of the motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-89-JH 9304. The learned JMFC rejected the application of the applicant, hence, the applicant preferred revision against the order of the JMFC rejecting his application. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Devas by order dated 11-5-04, passed in Criminal Revision No. 77/04 rejected the revision of applicant. Hence, the applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. PC to quash the aforesaid order and to allow his application for interim custody of the motor cycles.

(3.) IT is evident from the perusal of the order dated 11 - 5-04, passed by the learned Second ASJ, Devas in Criminal Revision No. 77/04 that, the learned jmfc, Devas has rejected the application for interim custody as intimation about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property had been sent. According to Section 54 of the Indian Forest Act, as applicable in Madhya pradesh, before passing any order for disposal of property the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that no intimation under sub-section (4) of Section 52 has been received by this Court or by any other Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property has been made. As soon as the magistrate receives the intimation of initiation of the confiscation proceedings he looses jurisdiction to pass any order for the disposal of seized property. In such a situation, the JMFC has not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner and the learned ASJ has not committed any error in rejecting the revision filed by the applicant against the order of JMFC.