RAM NISH BANSAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed under Section 482 Cr. PC against the order, dated 13 -1 -1989, passed by Shri Bahadur Mal Solera, Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra rejecting the application for giving interim custody of the truck alleged to have been seized by the officers of the Forest Department on 31 -12 -1988, bearing registration No. R.P.F. 2466 to the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this petition are that one truck bearing registration No. R.P.F. 2466 is alleged to have been checked by the officers of the Commercial Taxation Department on 31 -12 -1988 while it was carrying 122 logs of wood. Carrier had no valid papers showing lawful possession of the same, as a result of which the truck was detained and was seized along with wood by Asstt. Commercial Taxation Officer, Special Circle (B), Kota under Section 22(A)(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1955. On receiving information the Flying Squade of the Forest Department also arrived on the spot and Commercial Taxation Officer handed over the goods and the vehicle and prepared the documents. Police also prepared the seizure memo. Information of the seizure was given to ACJM Chhabra, on the same day. It is alleged that at the time of checking of the truck the driver Mehmood and Khalasi Brijendra were with the truck. The petitioner who is an unemployed graduate, had taken this truck on hire -purchase agreement. He moved an application before the learned Magistrate for delivery of the truck to him during the pendency of the enquiry and trial. Notice was given both to Forest Department and Commercial Taxation Department. Commercial Taxation Department had no objection to the delivery of the property on superdginama to the petitioner, but the officers of the Forest Department challenged the jurisdiction of the criminal court for entertaining an application for delivering the same. The learned Magistrate refused the application of the petitioner therefore, he has approached this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the department, Shri Prem Ashopa, has raised some legal objections. He has challenged the jurisdiction of criminal court in entertaining the application for interim custody and this Court under Section 482, Cr.PC. His submission is that Forest Act is a special Act which is a Code in itself and a procedure has been down about the delivery of the vehicle and confiscation during and after the case. It is submitted that Chapter 9 of the Forest Act deals with the procedure of seizure and subsequent to it It is submitted that Section 52 deals with the seizure of the property which is liable to confiscation and the property seized under Section 52 of the Act may be released by the persons specified in Section 53 of the Act His submission is that the property seized under Section 53 of the Act is neither being produced before the Magistrate nor is seized by the police therefore, provisions of Section 451 or Section 457 Cr. PC are not attracted. He submits that if the property is not dealt with in 'accordance with the provisions of this chapter, then this chapter itself provides for appeals against that order of the department to higher authorities. Hierarchy of officers has been mentioned in the Act to deal with the case falling under the Chapter and no power express or implied lies in any court except for perishable property which is mentioned in Section 58 of the Act. His submission is that an exception has been carved out by the legislation where it intended the forum of a court to be invoked in this chapter. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Asstt. Collector of Customs, Customs House, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi v. Tilak Raj Shiv Dayal, Dehradun : AIR1969Delhi301 , Susanta Kumar and Ors. v. State of W. Bengal 1983 Cr. LJ 772 Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of MP 1983 Cr. LJ 1378 and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1987 Cr. LJ 368. Relying on the aforesaid authorities his submission is that neither the Magistrate nor this Court under Section 482, Cr. PC has jurisdiction to deliver the property to the petitioner and the petitioner should be left to go to the departmental authorities,