ENQUIRY OFFICER-FOREST RANGE OFFICER Vs. MD. SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this revision under Sec. 401 read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated December 9, 2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2013 whereby the order dated November 6, 2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in connection with Case No. POR 51/WL of 2013 -2014 dated September 15, 2013 was set aside. Learned Additional Sessions Judge gave direction to learned Magistrate for passing fresh order regarding disposal of the seized vehicle.

(2.) On September 15, 2013 the opposite party was carrying 21 Parakeets and 151 Munias by his taxi bearing No. WB 04A - 9977 when the taxi was intercepted by the officers of Wild Life Wing. The authorised officer searched the said taxi, seized the birds, arrested the persons who were carrying the birds along with the opposite party and seized the said taxi for violation of the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. One complaint was filed before the court of learned Magistrate against the opposite party and two others for commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for violation of the provisions of Ss. 9/39/44/48/49 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. On September 26, 2013 the Divisional Forest Officer, (Wildlife Headquarters), West Bengal issued a notice to the opposite party calling upon him to explain in writing why the seized taxi will not be confiscated to the State. The opposite party gave reply in writing which was considered by the said Forest Officer. On October 29, 2013 the Forest Officer issued summons to the opposite party calling upon him to appear before the said authorised Officer on November 12, 2013 in connection with hearing of confiscation of the seized taxi. In the meantime, the opposite party moved an application before the court of learned Magistrate praying for return of the seized taxi on interim custody. On November 6, 2013 learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta refused to release the seized taxi in favour of the opposite party. The said order was challenged before the court of sessions by the opposite party by preferring Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2013. On December 9, 2013 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta disposed of Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2013 by setting aside the order passed by learned Magistrate and by giving direction to learned Magistrate to pass fresh order for return of the seized taxi in the light of the observations made by learned Additional Sessions Judge. On January 9, 2014 the authorised Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Wildlife, West Bengal passed an order of confiscation of the seized taxi under Sec. 59A(3) of the Indian Forest Act. The petitioner being the Enquiry Officer -Forest Range Officer, Wildlife Wing, Vigilance Section, (Wildlife Headquarters), Directorate of Forest, has preferred this revision challenging the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta.

(3.) With the above factual matrix, Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the seized taxi of the opposite party is confiscated by the authorised officer under Sec. 59A(3) of the Indian Forest Act as amended by the State of West Bengal and the said order will prevail over the interim order of custody of the vehicle passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sec. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that the provision of Indian Forest Act, 1927 can be invoked for confiscation of the vehicle seized for commission of the offence under the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. By referring to some provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and some provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Mr. Bhattacharjee has tried to impress upon the Court that the authorised Officer can invoke the provision of Indian Forest Act, 1927 for confiscation of the vehicle which was seized for commission of the offence punishable under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. By referring to the provision of Sec. 59G of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by the State of West Bengal, Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that there is bar of jurisdiction of the court when the vehicle is confiscated by the authorised Officer by invoking the provisions of Sec. 59A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by the State of West Bengal. The further submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee is that the only remedy of the opposite party is by way of preferring an appeal before learned District Judge under Sec. 59D of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by the State of West Bengal. He has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in "State (NCT of Delhi) V. Narender" reported in : 2014 (1) AICLR 666 in support of his above contention.