THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SAURABH NAMDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved with the order dated 14.9.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chhatarpur in criminal revision No.141/2012, whereby the revisionary Court has set aside the order dated 26.6.2012 passed by the appellate authority and Ex-Officio Conservator of Forest, Chhatarpur, in which order dated 20.4.2012 passed by the Authorized Officer in case No.232/23 dated 20.10.2009 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the authorized officer for its reconsideration.

(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 20.10.2009, the authorized officer including Shri Nabi Ahmed, Deputy Range Officer (Forest) visited the beat No.615 in forest area and found that one Ramesh Raikwar with help of tractor M.P.16-M-4721 alongwith its cultivator was ploughing the forest land. He was stopped and the forest officers demanded the documents related to that field. Thereafter, it was found that he ploughed 5 acres of forest land and therefore, 150 small plants and various bushes were removed in that ploughing. Two trees of Sarkata were also found damaged and therefore, it was seized and forest crime No.232/23 dated 20.10.2009 was registered. On enquiry it was found that owner of the tractor was Shri Namdeo, R/o Vishwanath Colony, Chhatarpur An intimation was given to the concerned Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur vide letter dated 22.10.2009 that confiscation proceeding was initiated. Authorized officer after recording evidence of the parties vide order dated 26.6.2012 found that the seizure of tractor was doubtful as to whether it was ploughing the forest land and whether being ploughed upon the direction of the owner and therefore, the authorized officer vide order dated 20.4.2012 released the tractor and cultivator. The appellate authority took a suo moto revision and remanded the matter vide order dated 26.6.2012.

(3.) The revisionary Court in its order dated 30.9.2013 has reversed the order passed by the appellate authority on the basis that at the time of incident, provision of Section 52-A of Indian Forest Act (M.P. Amendment) has provided an appeal against the order of confiscation but, no such provision was made if the vehicle is released by the authorised officer and therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority was reversed.