KARNAM LAXMIPATI PADMINI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being unsuccessful in persuading the courts below to grant her prayer for interim release of the seized timber to her, the petitioner filed this petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release the same in her favour.

(2.) The petitioner Smt. Karnam Laxmipati Padmini claims to be the proprietor of the firm M/s. Lotus Engineering Enterprises at Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh. It is her case that her firm purchased 749.57 cubic feet of timber comprising of 17.21 cubic feet non-sal and 732.36 cubic feet sized teak planks from M/s. Sarala Timbers at Laxmi Sagar in the district of Puri. When the said timber was being loaded in a wagon at Bhubaneswar Station by one Satish Chandra Parija on 5-5-85 for being transported to Visakhapatnam the Range Officer, Bhubaneswar seized the timber since no transit permit could be produced either by the railway staff or by the person who was loading the goods in the wagon authorising transport of the same to Visakhapatnam. The said Forest Officer also arrested the accused persons and released them on bail. He submitted a prosecution report in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, (S.D. J.M.) under S. 45 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (for short, "the Act") and rule 4 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (for short "the Rules") the case was registered as 2(b) C.C. No. 22 of 1986.

(3.) In the said case the petitioner filed an application purportedly under S. 56(3) of the Act before the learned S.D.J.M. for interim custody of the seized timber claiming ownership over the same on the basis of her purchase from M/s. Sarala Timbers. The learned S.D.J.M. by his order dated 21-9-87 rejected the prayer for interim custody of the seized articles on the grounds, inter alia, that the goods were in custody of the forest officials and they are not perishable commodities. Against the said order the petitioner filed a revision petition, Criminal Revision No. 11/166 of 1987 in the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. The revisional authority by his order dated 20th of March, 1989 dismissed the revision petition on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned S.D.J.M. had no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the application for interim custody of the seized goods. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sarat Kumar Malu v. The State of Orissa, reported in (1984) 57 CLT 381 : (1984 Cri LJ 984).