STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RAJESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed by the petitioner/State Government against the order dated 04.04.2000 passed in Criminal Revision No.36/2000 by the Sessions Judge, Chattarpur (M.P.), whereby in a confiscation proceedings initiated under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927, the vehicle of the respondent i.e. Tempo Trax bearing registration No.MP19-A-9434 which was involved in the commission of forest offence on 09.02.1999 in which 10 teak logs were transported. The confiscation proceedings initiated after the seizure was made by the Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), who vide its order dated 31.07.1999, passed an order that the vehicle should be released. Thereafter, a D.F.O. took suo motu cognizance in the matter and directed for confiscation of the vehicle vide order dated 03.02.2000.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of confiscation, the owner of the vehicle preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Chattarpur under Section 52 B of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the learned Judge of the Sessions Court vide its order dated 04.04.2000 has allowed the revision and directed that the vehicle be released immediately. The aforesaid order dated 04.04.2000 is under-challenged before this Court in the present writ petition. Initially on account of conflict of two judgments of this Court, the matter was referred to the larger bench in respect of interpretation of words "order of confiscation". The larger bench vide its order dated 01.08.2017 answered the reference and the matter is now placed before this Court for further hearing.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset, has submitted that soon after the order of Sessions Judge for release of the vehicle it was released on 10.04.2000 which is also mentioned in the reply. It is further submitted that the aforesaid vehicle was purchased on higher purchase basis from Ashok Leyland Finance Company and as the petitioner was not in a position to pay the installments, the vehicle was seized by the company and it has already been sold on 25.02000 to a third party and as such, since the vehicle is not in possession of the petitioner, no order of confiscation can be passed. It is further submitted that since the incident took place in the year 1999, the vehicle was registered prior to the aforesaid date and as such even legal life of the vehicle has come to an end after 15 years.