SUSHANTA KUMAR PAUL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who claims to be owner of truck No. WB -15 -0229, has filed this application under Sections 397 and 401, Cr PC for release of truck seized in connection with Mandu/ Kujju P.S. Case No. 158 of 2002. In course of hearing of the instant application, an order was passed on 25.6.2002, pursuant to which petitioner, through supplementary affidavit, has amended the petition and has challenged the seizure also. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 25.6.2002 is quoted herein below :

(2.) A counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party has also been filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, it was stated on behalf of the learned counsel for the State that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice as learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared before the competent authority cum Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh and has placed his case before the authority and he referred two dates on which learned counsel for the petitioner appeared before the competent authority after going through the orders passed in Confiscation Proceeding No. 23/2002. It was further stated that since confiscation proceeding was initiated and information was sent to the learned CJM and thereafter, when the petitioner filed the revision, an order was passed and then petitioner filed a representation before the competent authority, who after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner on several dates, passed confiscation order. Hence there is no violation of the principle of natural justice. The learned counsel further referred to the order dated 25.6.2002 passed in the revision application and pointed out that there was no such order to release the vehicle but there was an order to dispose of the representation within fifteen days from the date of filing of the representation and the competent authority after giving opportunity of hearing and after full hearing passed an order in confiscation proceeding and as such, there is no violation of the order dated 25.6.2002. It was further pointed out that the petitioner has got remedy of appeal as well as revision and he has not exhausted all the remedies and, therefore, this revision application is not maintainable, Learned counsel further pointed out that the High Court has got no jurisdiction when an order confiscating the articles or tools used in the commission of forest offences is passed and as such, the petitioner has got no remedy here and he should move before the appellate Court, which is the Court of District Magistrate or should go in revision against the confiscation order before the Forest Secretary.