JAHANGIR GULI KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the applicant challenges the order of the Sessions Judge, Vidisha, passed in Criminal Revision No.82/1986 dated 25-8-1986.

(2.) Facts. On 4-10-1985 Range Forest Officer Gyaraspur seized Jeep No. CIC 8073 and 3 licensed rifles from the possession of the applicant exercising his powers under section 50(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner is the registered owner of the jeep and also holds licence of these fire arms, issued to him by District Magistrate. These facts are not disputed by the State. The petitioner, when his jeep and fire arms were seized by the Forest Range Officer, filed an application before him on that very day for the return of the seized articles as interim receiver till final adjudication of the matter by the Court of law. The Range Forest Officer Gyaraspur sat over that prayer and did not pass any order. So the petitioner filed an application before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vidisha, on 8-10-1985 for the return of these seized articles on supurdgi. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vidisha, issued notice to the Range Forest Officer Gyaraspur and, after hearing the parties, directed the articles to be returned, on interim custody, to the petitioner on his furnishing solvent surety of Rs. 1 lac. The Forest Department, through Divisional Forest Officer, Vidisha, challenged this order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, by a criminal revision, and the Sessions Judge, Vidisha, by his order dated 25-8-1986 reversed the order passed by the Magistrate and allowed the criminal revision. Aggrieved by that order of the Sessions Judge, the petitioner invoked the inherent powers of this Court.

(3.) Shri N.P. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Sessions Judge has misdirected himself and has wrongly followed the principles enunciated in the order passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 2024 of 1982, D/-13-12-1982, upon which the learned Sessions Judge placed entire reliance. On perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Sessions Judge has misinterpreted the principles and facts decided in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 2024 of 1982. The facts and law decided in that case are completely different from that of the case in hand. In Misc. Criminal Case No. 2024 of 1982, the facts disclosed are that an abandoned jeep was seized. It was not seized from the possession of any particular person. It is further evident that the applicant in that case was not the registered owner of the vehicle. It is also evident that the seized jeep was an article stolen, number plate forged and chassis number erased. Thus, the person was prosecuted for forgery, cheating and making fictitious changes. The ratio decided by this Court in Misc. Cr. Case No. 2024/1982 is absolutely different from the case in hand and on this very ground, the impugned order deserves to be quashed, but I hold my pen and proceed further to consider the rival contentions.