SARAT KUMAR MALU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, registered owner of truck No. ORX 8589, challenges the legality of the order of the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda, dated 24 -8 -1983 whereunder the learned Magistrate has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the truck. The truck in question was seized by the officials of the forest department on 24 -6 -1983 on the allegation that certain teak logs were stealthily being removed in the said vehicle and thereby an offence under the Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is said to have been committed and the vehicle in question was used in committing such offence. The petitioner filed an application in the court of the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate on the ground that he is the registered owner of the vehicle and had absolutely no knowledge about carrying of any teak logs in the vehicle and in the interests of justice, the truck should be released in his favour. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the said petition on the ground that specific provisions haying been made in the Act, the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts must be held to be excluded.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the legality of the aforesaid order and contends that the special statute, namely, the Orissa Forest Act, does not exclude the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts in the matter of release of the seized property and the learned Magistrate, therefore, committed gross illegality in rejecting his application for release.

(3.) CHAPTER XXXIV of the Code deals with 'disposal of property'. Sections 451 to 459 of the Code occurring in the said chapter deal with the powers of Courts in the matter of disposal of property. Any order to be passed by a criminal Court in relation to disposal of property must come under one or another of the said sections depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 451 enables a magistrate to provide for interim custody of any seized property produced before him in course of an inquiry or trial and the only exception is if the property in question is subject to speedy and natural decay or the magistrate thinks it expedient so to do, then he may order the property to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Section 452 provides for disposal after the trial or inquiry is over. Both these sections deal with cases which have actually come up before the court in any inquiry or trial. Sections 453 to 456 of the Code also relate to disposal of property, but I am not concerned with those sections in the present case. Sub -section (1) of Section 457 applies to cases where the seizure of a property by a police officer is reported to a magistrate, but the property is not produced before the court during inquiry or trial. In such a case, the magistrate has the power to pass orders regarding disposal of such property or delivery of the property to the person entitled to the possession thereof. Subsection (2) of Section 457 provides the procedure to be adopted when the person entitled to the property is unknown. Section 457 is a general provision. Section 458 provides the procedure where no claimant appears within six months and Section 459 empowers the magistrate to sell perishable properties. These are all the provisions in the Code dealing with disposal of properties seized.