Manoj Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2514 of 2019 Order reserved on 19/06/2020 Order delivered on 29/06/2020 Manoj Agrawal S/o Late Shri Mahadev Agrawal, Caste Agrawal, Aged about 42 years, R/o Niche Para, Dharamjaigarh, P.S.

and Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

2. Forest Officer (Forester), Bakaruka Forest Department, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

3. Competent Officer/Sub-divisional Forest Officer, Forest Department, Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents/State For Petitioner:- Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State :- Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal C.A.V. Order

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken up for final hearing through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner's motor vehicle was found involved in commission of forest offence bearing PRO No. 14078/05 under sections 53 and 57 of Indian

Forest Act, 1927 and it was accordingly seized by the competent authority and thereafter, on 03/12/2018, the authorized officer on exercise of power conferred under Section 52(a) of the Act of 1927 informed the jurisdictional Magistrate about the initiation of confiscation proceeding to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dharamjaigarh, Raigarh.

3. An application was filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for grant of interim custody which was rejected by learned trial Magistrate and upheld by the revisional Court against which this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed. Return has been filed opposing the petition stating that in view of Section 52-C of the Act, petitioner's application has rightly been rejected.

4. Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in rejecting petitioner's application, as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned Deputy Advocate General would support the impugned order and submit that since the

initiation of confiscation proceedings has been intimidated to jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate, therefore, Section 52-C of the Act of 1927 is squarely attracted and the present petition deserves to be dismissed as jurisdiction of concerned Magistrate is already ousted.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. In order to consider the plea raised at the bar, it would be appropriate to consider Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act substituted by the M.P. Amendment Act No. 1983 with effect from 1st November, 1983.

8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 52-C of the aforesaid act:- "52C. Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts etc. in certain circumstances.- (1) On receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52 about initiation of proceedings for confiscation or property by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property which is subject matter of confiscation, has been made, no Court, Tribunal or Authority (other than the authorised officer, Appellate Authority and Revision Authority referred to in sections, 52, 52A and 52B) shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in

regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force.

Explanation.-Where under any law for the time being in force, two or more Courts have jurisdiction to try forest offence, then on receipt of intimation under subsection (4) of section 52 by one of the Courts of Magistrate having such jurisdiction shall be construed to be receipt of intimation under that provision by all the Courts and the bar to exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such Courts.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the power saved under section 61."

9. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision i.e. Section 52-C would show that when the forest produce and the vehicle is seized in commission of forest offence and proceedings for confiscation are initiated of which an intimation has been received under Section 52(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 about initiation of proceedings for confiscation by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence, no Court, Tribunal or authority (other than authorized officer, Appellate Authority and the Court of Sessions referred in Sections 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal of distribution of the property and as such section 451/457 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 will

have no application as jurisdiction to consider the said application is ousted.

10.Even otherwise, this issue is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively and conclusively adjudicated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh1 in which their Lordships took note of the provisions contained in section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as substituted by State of Madhya Pradesh and clearly held that the jurisdiction under Section 451 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is not available to the Magistrate once authorized officer initiate confiscation proceedings and it is intimated to the jurisdictional Magistrate being Judicial Magistrate First Class under section 52 (4) of the Act of 1927 and held as under :

"26. Our analysis of the amendments brought by MP Act 25 of 1983 to the Indian Forest Act 1927 leads to the conclusion that specific provisions have been made for the seizure and confiscation of forest produce and of tools, boats, vehicles and articles used in the commission of offences. Upon a seizure Under Section 52(1), the officer effecting the seizure has to either produce the property before the Authorised Officer or to make a report of the seizure Under Sub-section (2) of 1 A.I.R. 2019 SC 1597

Section 52. Upon being satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, the Authorised Officer is empowered, for reasons to be recorded, to confiscate the forest produce together with the tools, vehicles, boats and articles used in its commission. Before confiscating any property Under Sub-section (3), the Authorised Officer is required to send an intimation of the initiation of the proceedings for the confiscation of the property to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. Where it is intended to immediately launch a criminal proceeding, a report of the seizure is made to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. The order of confiscation Under Section 52(3) is subject to an appeal Under Section 52-A and a revision Under Section 52-B.

Subsection (5) of Section 52-B imparts finality to the order of the Court of Sessions in revision notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in the Code of Criminal Procedure and provides that it shall not be called into question before any court. Section 52-C stipulates that on the receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate Under Sub-section (4) of Section 52, no court, tribunal or authority, other than an Authorised Officer, an Appellate Authority or Court of Sessions (Under Sections 52, 52A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which confiscation proceedings have been initiated.

Subsection (1) of Section 52-C has a non obstante provision which operates notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Forest Act 1927 or in any other law for the time being in force. The only saving is in respect of an officer duly empowered by the State government for directing the immediate release of a property seized Under Section 52, as provided in Section 61.

confiscation proceedings Under Sub-section (4)(a) of Section 52, the bar of jurisdiction Under Sub-section (1) of Section 52-C is clearly attracted. The scheme contained in the amendments enacted to the Indian Forest Act 1927 in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh, makes it abundantly clear that the direction which was issued by the High Court in the present case, in a petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the Magistrate to direct the interim release of the vehicle, which had been seized, was contrary to law. The jurisdiction Under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not available to the Magistrate, once the Authorised Officer initiated confiscation proceedings.

27. The Madhya Pradesh amendments to the Indian Forest Act 1927 are infused with a salutary public purpose. Protection of forests against depredation is a constitutionally mandated goal exemplified by Article 48A19 of the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Duty of every citizen incorporated in Article 51A(g)20. By isolating the confiscation of forest produce and the instruments utilised for the commission of an offence from criminal trials, the legislature intended to ensure that confiscation is an effective deterrent. The absence of effective deterrence was considered by the Legislature to be a deficiency in the legal regime. The state amendment has sought to overcome that deficiency by imposing stringent deterrents against activities which threaten the pristine existence of forests in Madhya Pradesh. As an effective tool for protecting and preserving environment, these provisions must receive a purposive interpretation.

For, it is only when the interpretation of law keeps pace with the object of the Legislature that the grave evils which pose a danger to our natural environment can be suppressed. The avarice of humankind through the ages has resulted in

an alarming depletion of the natural environment. The consequences of climate change are bearing down on every day of our existence. Statutory interpretation must remain eternally vigilant to the daily assaults on the environment."

11.Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of principles of law laid down in aforesaid judgment in the matter of Uday Singh(supra), it is quite vivid that in the instant case the Authorized officer/DFO initiated confiscation proceeding of the vehicle owned by the petitioner and on 03/12/2018 informed the initiation of confiscation proceeding to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh by its memo dated 03/12/2018 which is filed as Annexure R-2 with the return which states as under :

ज्቎शुददा सम्पतत, जजो वन अपरदाध म ्ቚयशु्ሹ ककी गई ह, उसकजो रदाजसदात करने ककी कदायरवदाहही ्ቚदारमभ करने ककी सूचनदा न्यदायदालय, ्ቚदाधधककत अधधकदारही एवम उप वनमण्डलदाधधकदारही - लहलसूमगदा उप वनमण्डल ्ቅमदाሯक/तश.धल./्ቚदा.अ./रदाजसदात/1498 /2018/लहलसूमगदा, तदनदाሯक 3/12/2018 ्ቚतत, मदाननहीय, न्यदातयक दण्डदाधधकदारही ्ቚथम शनेणही, धरमजयगढ, धजलदा-रदायगढ (छ.ग.) तवषययपही०ओ०आर० ्ቅमदाሯक - 14078/05, तदनदाሯक - 03.12.2018 सने ज्቎ अपरदाध करने म ्ቚयशु्ሹ वदाहन तपकअप, सफनेद रमग कदा, तबिनदा नम्बिर कदा, चनेतचस नम.

51 39766 MATZG GAA K एवम इमजन नम. 0302 AB N कजो रदाजसदात समबिमधही सूचनदा दनेने बिदाबित् । तवषयदामतगरत तनवनेदन ह तक मने, भदारतहीय वन अधधतनयम 1927 ककी धदारदा 33 (1) क छतहीसगढ पररवहन अधधतनयम 2001 ककी धदारदा 41 तन. (3). तन. 18 छ.ग. वनजोपज व्यदापदार (तवतनमय) तनयम 1969 ककी धदारदा 05 (1) छ.ग. वनजोपज (व्यदापदार तवतनयम) कदा्቗ तनयम 1973 ककी धदारदा 3, 4 कने तहत वन अपरदाध म ्ቚयशु्ሹ हजोने वदालही वदाहन तपकअप, सफनेद रमग कदा, तबिनदा नम्बिर कदा, चनेतचस नम.

51 39766 MATZG GAA K एवम इमजन नम. 0302 AB N कजो रदाजसदात करने ककी कदायरवदाहही ्ቚदारमभ कर दही गई ह, धजसककी सूचनदा तनम्नधलधखित तववरण म दही जदा रहही हय- ्ቅ.

तवषय तववरण 1.

(अ) उस वस्तशु कदा तववरण धजसकजो रदाजसदात तकयदा जदानदा ्ቚस्तदातवत ह । वदाहन तपकअप, सफनेद रमग कदा, तबिनदा नम्बिर कदा मय वनजोपज सदाल तचरदान 40 नग = 0.720 घ.मही.

(बि) उन पररसस्थतयोሱ कदा समतቌኌ्቎ तववरण धजसम वह ज्቎ ककी गई । सदाल तचरदान 40 नग = 0.720 घ.मही. वनजोपज कजो अवहध पररवहन म समधल्቎तदा कने कदारण 2.

ज्቎शुददा वस्तशु कने मदाधलक कदा नदाम, तपतदा कदा नदाम, तनवदास स्थदान, पनेशदा आतद नदामदालसूम 3.

उस व्यत्ሹ कदा नदाम/तपतदा कदा नदाम, तनवदासही धजससने कदालम 'अ' म दशदारयही सम्पतत ज्቎ ककी गई नदामदालसूम 4.

ज्቎ही कदा तदनदाሯक, समय, स्थदान तदनदामक 03.12.2018, समय 04:00 AM स्थदान, तनेजपशुर पररसर कने कቌኌ ्ቅ. 130 पही.एफ. कने अमतगरत पजोलदाईअदामट नदामक स्थल कने शदासककीय ्ቚदाथतमक शदालदा कने महददान कने पदास । 5.

उस अधधकदारही कदा नदाम/पद धजसने ऊपर वतणरत वस्तशु ज्቎ ककी

1. शही तवनजोद कशुमदार ततग्गदा, (वनपदाल) पररसर रቌኌक तनेजपशुर

2. शही डही.एस. उपदाध्यदाय, (वनपदाल) पररቌኌनेत सहदायक बिदाकदारूमदा 6.

ज्቎ शुददा वस्तशुत कदा अनशुमदातनत मसूल्य 13032 + 150000 = 163032/- 7.

अपरदाध/अपरदाधोሱ कदा तववरण मय धदारदा व अधधतनयम धजनकने अमतगरत अपरदाध हआ ह भभरततयवनअधधधनयम1927 कतधभरभ 33 (1) कछततसगढपधरवहनअधधधनयम कतधभरभ41 धन. (3). धन. 18 छ.ग.

वननपजवयभपभर(धवधनमय) धनयम1969 कतधभरभ05 (1) छ.ग.

वननपज( वयभपभर धवधनयम) कभषठधनयम1973 कतधभरभ3, 8.

सूचनदा ्ቚनेषण कदा तदनदाሯक 03.12.2018 सहही/- ्ቚदाधधककत अधधकदारही एवम उप वनमण्डलदाधधकदारही-लहलसूमगदा पक.्ቅमदाሯक/तश.धल./्ቚदा.अ./रदाजसदात/1499 /2018/लहलसूमगदा, तदनदामक 3/12/2018 ्ቚततधलतपय- 1. वनमण्डलदाधधकदारही धरमजयगढ वनमण्डल कजो सूचनदाथर सदादर सम््ቚनेतषत।

2. वन पररቌኌनेतदाधधकदारही, बिदाकदारूमदा पररቌኌनेत कजो उनकने पत ्ቅमदाሯक 872, तदनदाሯक 03.12.2018 कने परर्ቚनेቌኚय म सूचनदाथर अगनेतषत । आप ्ቚकरण ककी तत्थदात्मक/तवस्तकत जदाሯच कर, सम्पसूणर ्ቚकरण इस न्यदायदालय म सदात तदवस कने अमदर ्ቚस्तशुत करम । तदातक, आगदामही कदायरवदाहही ककी जदा सकने । सहही/- ्ቚदाधधककत अधधकदारही एवम उप वनमण्डलदाधधकदारही-लहलसूमगदा

12. Once the confiscation proceeding is initiated for confiscation of vehicle seized in forest offence and the initiation of confiscation proceeding has been informed under Section 52(4) of the Act of 1927 as amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh to concerned Magistrate, jurisdiction of Magistrate to grant interim custody under Section 451 is expressly barred and stand ousted by virtue of provision contained in Section 52-C of the Act of 1927.

13.Consequently, learned Session Judge is absolutely justified in affirming the order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class refusing interim custody to the petitioner. I do not find any merit in this petition and it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet