STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SATTAR KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 22nd September, 2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Paschim Medinipur in Criminal Appeal No.08/2015 setting aside the order of confiscation dated 2nd January, 2015, passed by the authorized officer under section 59A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and directing release of the vehicle bearing No.WB-41F-1196 to its registered owner, that is, the opposite party herein upon executing a bond of Rs. 12 lakhs with an undertaking to produce the same during continuation of the proceeding has been assailed.

(2.) Mr. Saibal Bapuli, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner-State of West Bengal submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not authorized to exercise appellate powers under section 59D of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by West Bengal Act 22 of 1988. He referred to section 59G of the said Act in support of his contention. He further submitted that the expression 'District Judge' in section 59D of the Indian Forest Act creates a 'persona designata' to exercise appellate powers and debars any other court, tribunal or authority to exercise such power. He also submitted that the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind necessitating interference by this Court in exercise of its superintending jurisdiction.

(3.) On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party relied on the decision of this Court in The State v. Gurbachan Singh reported in 1992 C. Cr. LR (Cal) 385 and submitted that the same judicial personnel was holding the post of District Judge as well as the Sessions Judge in the district of Jalpaiguri and, therefore, exercise of power by its delegatee, that is, Additional District cum Sessions Judge cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.