STATE OF MP Vs. RAJESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been placed before the Division Bench on a reference being made by the learned single Judge vide order dated 2.2.2017 being of the opinion that there is conflict between the judgments in the case of Sohan lal Keshari Vs. State of M.P.and Umashankar Usrete Vs. State of M.P and Ors, 2008 (4) M.P.H.T. 393, in respect of the interpretation of the words "order of confiscation" used in Section 52-A of The Indian Forest Act 1927 as amended by M.P.Act No. 25 of 1983.

(2.) Before we render our opinion to the reference made to us, it is pertinent to note that this petition has been filed by the State being aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.36/2000 whereby, while setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority in exercise of suo-motu appellate powers under Section 52-A(2) of the Indian Forest Act 1927, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), it has held that the power of suo-motu appeal can be exercised only against an order passed by the authorized officer confiscating the vehicle, boat, tools etc and is not available and cannot be invoked in respect of an order releasing the vehicle, boat, tools etc. We do not propose to enter into the facts of the case in detail as they are not necessary for answering the reference and would be appropriately looked into by the Bench concerned, after the reference is answered by us, except for taking note of the fact that in the instant case the authorized officer had passed a composite order on 11.7.1999 by which the forest produce (0.375 Cu.mt.teak wood) was confiscated while the vehicle involved in the commission of the offence, Tempo Trax No. MP19-A-9434 was released without registering an F.I.R. or referring the case for adjudication to the Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) The records of the case indicates that while the matter was being taken up for hearing by the learned Single Judge, he noticed that a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Sohan lal Keshari Vs. State of M.P. had specifically considered and interpreted the provision of Section 52-A of the Act and held that the words 'order of confiscation used in section 52-A should actually be read as "order passed in confiscation proceedings" and therefore the appellate authority had the power and authority to initiate suo-motu appeal proceedings under section 52-A(2) of the Act even in cases where a vehicle was not confiscated but was directed to be released by the authorised officer in proceedings under section 52 of the Act. The learned single Judge also noticed that another single Bench of this Court in the case of Umashankar Usrete Vs. State of M.P and Ors [2008 (4) M.P.H.T. 393] while interpreting the same words, namely, "order of confiscation" used in the same provision of Section 52-A of the Act, without taking note of the previous decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Sohan lal Keshari (Supra), has taken a directly divergent and contrary view by holding that an appeal under section 52-A of the Act can be filed only in a case where there was an order confiscating the vehicle. The learned single Judge was of the view that the words "order of confiscation" whether used in Section 52-A(1) or Section 52-A(2) have to be given the same meaning and therefore the divergent views taken in the two decisions cannot be reconciled.