Criminal Appln. 696 of 1996. Case: Kamlesh Vs State of Maharashtra and another. Bombay High Court

Order:

(Nagpur Bench)

1. The applicant who is the owner of the Tractor and Trolley bearing Nos. MH 31/G 5241 and MH 31/6934 respectively has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the orders passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saoner, on the application of releasing the tractor and trolley on Supratnama dated 21-3-1996 in Criminal Case No. 99/96 and the order dated 6-6-1996 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No. 438/96 on the ground that both the impugned orders are illegal.

2. The Round Officer, Khapa Forest Range, Tahsil Saoner, district Nagpur seized the tractor and trolley of the applicant on 8-2-1996 as it was carrying sand from Khapa Range Forest for the offences punishable under Section 26(1)(c)(d) and (g) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Forest Officer has reported the seizure of the said tractor and trolley along with sand to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saoner. The applicant has filed an application for supratnama on 16-3-1996. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has held that in view of definition of Section 2 of the Indian Forest Act sand is a forest produce and under Section 52 of the Act, the property is liable to be confiscated and forfeited and held that the Court has no jurisdiction to release the property.

3. Being aggrieved by this order, the applicant has preferred revision. The applicant has raised a specific ground in the memo of revision that the amended provisions of the Act, Section 61 (A) to (G) are not applicable in the present case, as the sand is not notified forest produce. The revisional Court has observed that in view of definition of Section 2(4)(iv) 'sand' is a forest produce. He has further observed that considering Section 52(a) of Indian Forest Act any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation may, within thirty days of the order prefer an appeal in writing before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, revisionist ought to have preferred appeal against seizure of the said tractor. The applicant has no authority to take the said vehicle on supratnama because in the document of Panchanama and seizure the numbers are not mentioned and he is entitled to say that he is the owner of the said tractor and trolley.

4. The learned counsel has submitted that the trial Magistrate has erred in holding that he has no jurisdiction, as the amended provisions of Section 61(A),to (G) of the Act are...