SADH MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been preferred against impugned order dtd. 18/3/2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.II, Kangra, District Kangra in Cr.MA No. 130 of 2021 titled Sadh Mohammad vs. State of H.P., whereby application preferred by petitioner under Sec. 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short " Cr.PC'), seeking release of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-19B-4409 along with documents in case FIR No. 112 of 2019, dtd. 27/6/2019, registered under Ss. 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act and Sec. 379 of Indian Penal Code, has been dismissed, on the ground that in view of provisions of Indian Forest Act and pronouncement of Courts, including the Supreme Court in cases State of Karnataka vs. K.A. Kunchindammed, reported in (2002)9 SCC 90; Sohan Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2004 Law Suit (HP) 76; Mohd. Tazim vs. State of Uttrakhand and others 2012 Law Suit (Utt.)851; State of Madhya Pradesh; Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambel Adhyaran; Authorized Officer and Sub Divisional Officer, Shivpuri, M.P. vs. Uday Singh; Rakesh Lavaniya; Narottam Singh; Jashrat Singh 2019 Law Suit (SC) 961, the Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction/authority to pass an order qua interim custody of vehicle.

(2.) Present petition has been filed mainly on ground that though there is bar of jurisdiction under Sec. 59-B of Indian Forest Act for making an order with regard to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of property including vehicle used for committing any forest offence and seized under Sec. 52 of Indian Forest Act, however, the said bar of jurisdiction shall operate only when Authorized Officer under Indian Forest Act shall take action under Sec. 52(1) of Indian Forest Act for confiscating the vehicle and sending the report to Magistrate under Sec. 52(2) of Indian Forest Act and also for compliance of provisions of Ss. 52-A and 52-B of Indian Forest Act.

(3.) It has been submitted that in present case, neither report of seizure under Sec. 52(2) was sent to Magistrate by Authorized Officer nor a show cause notice before confiscation was issued to petitioner and therefore, it has been urged that bar under Sec. 59-B shall not operate in present case and learned Magistrate is deemed to be authorized and having jurisdiction to order interim custody of vehicle in question, but the Magistrate has failed to exercise jurisdiction conferred upon him.