STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment dated 24. 03. 2007 of the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Baripada in Criminal Revision No. 3/29 of 2006 directing release of the seized hero Honda Motorcycle and the mobile handset by setting aside the order dated 19. 07. 2006 passed by the S. D. J. M. ,udala in 2 (b) C. C. Case No. 33 of 2006 is assailed in the instant revision.

(2.) FACTS OF THE CASE: on 23. 6. 2006 at about 4. 00 A. M. the forest officials detected a Mahindra Pickup van bearing registration number OR-01-D-9622 loaded with 120 pieces of Sal and kaima timbers. During course of detection, it is alleged, the driver of the said Van and the timber smugglers fled away. The opposite party was caught red handed along with a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration number OR-01-E-7639 and a mobile phone. As per instruction of the Range Officer, the above noted vehicles and mobile phone were seized together with the forest produce, seizure list was prepared in presence of the witnesses and accused-opposite party was arrested. On 13. 07. 2005, the accused-opposite party filed a petition before the S. D. J. M. , Udala to release the seized hero Honda Motorcycle and the mobile phone. The S. D. J. M. after hearing the parties rejected the said petition by order dated 19. 07. 2006 inter alia on the ground that there was every chance of instituting confiscation proceeding by the Authorised officer under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest act with regard to the seized property. Against that order, accused-opposite party preferred Crl. Revision No. 29 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, baripada. The said revision was eventually transferred to the court of the Addl. Sessions judge (FTC), Baripada and re-numbered as Crl. Revision No. 3/29 of 2006. The Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing the parties by judgment dated 24. 03. 2007 allowed the revision by setting aside the order of the S. D. J. M. and directed release of the seized Hero Honda Motorcycle and mobile phone inter alia with the finding that no confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest act was pending before the Authorised Officer and there was also absolutely nothing in the P. R. to suggest that the opposite party is a timber mafia. Assailing the said order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, the State has preferred this revision.

(3.) MR. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal court has no jurisdiction to release the properties in question which have not been seized by the police officer but by the forest officials in connection with forest offence. Therefore, the impugned judgment allowing the revision is illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, Mr. Rao relies upon the decisions in State of orissa v. Akhaya Charan Choudhury, 1990 (I) OLR 481, Sarat Kumar Malu v. State of orissa, 57 (1984) CLT 381 : (1984 Cri LJ 984)and Kuril Tirla v. State of Orissa, 2007 (36)OCR 828.