STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PRAKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 CrPC is directed against judgment dated 1.4.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, HP in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2014, whereby order dated 6.8.2014 passed by the Authorized Officer-cumDivisional Forest Officer, Kullu in Case No. 7/2014 titled Prakash Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh, has been set aside and vehicle in question i.e. Jeep No. HP-66-3614 alongwith documents and keys has been ordered to be released in favour of the respondent-owner.

(2.) Briefly stated facts as emerge from record are that respondent-owner vide application dated 1.8.2014, made a prayer before Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Kullu for release of vehicle /Jeep No. HP-66-3614 on Sapurdari bond, which was impounded by the police in FIR No. 157/2014 dated 18.5.2014 under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and under Section 379 IPC. However, the fact remains that the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Kullu rejected aforesaid application having been preferred by the respondent namely Prakash Chand. Learned Authorized Officer, while dismissing application for release having been made on behalf of the respondent-owner concluded that in the instant case, vehicle in question was seized by the police on 185.2014 in FIR No. 157/2014 and no report of seizure has been made to him under Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act nor seized property has been produced before him under the Act, as such, he is not empowered to exercise jurisdiction as conferred upon him under Section 52A of the Indian Forest Act.

(3.) Respondent, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 6.8.2014, passed by the learned Authorized Officercum-Divisional Forest Officer, Kullu preferred a criminal revision before Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, which came to be registered as Cr. Revision No. 33/2014. Subsequently, aforesaid criminal revision having been filed by the respondent was treated as criminal appeal, as emerges from the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, while accepting the aforesaid appeal having been filed by the respondent quashed order dated 6.8.2014 passed by Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Kullu in case No. 7/2014 and ordered release of vehicle in question alongwith documents and keys, in favour of the respondent namely Prakash Chand, being registered owner of the vehicle in question, on furnishing Sapurdari bond to the tune of '5.00 Lakh, with one guarantee in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu.