IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2166 OF 2012 Between:
B. Tirupathi Goud … Petitioner/A-3 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P.
Hyderabad. … Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri C. Damodar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2166 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash orders dated 17/02/2012 in Crl.MP.No. 575 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal, Warangal district, whereunder the learned Magistrate dismissed petition filed under section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the vehicle.
2. Heard both sides.
3. As seen from the record, lorry bearing No.AP-36/W-9851 was seized by Police Officers, which is indulged in transportation of 732 teak wood planks without any valid bills. Police seized the said lorry alongwith property on 05/2/2012 and handed over the same to Forest Department on 06/02/2012 for taking necessary action as per the provisions of A.P. Forest Act, 1967. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed under section 457 Cr.P.C. observing that since seized property alongwith lorry was handed over to Forest Department and the proceedings for confiscation are pending before the Forest Department, the petitioner has to approach the Forest Department for necessary orders. Admittedly the petitioner has not moved the Forest officials for any orders.
4. Section 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 deals with procedure in respect of seized property, which is liable for confiscation. According to this section where an offence has been committed in respect of any timber or forest produce and when such timber or forest produce, together with tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used for committing such offence may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. Here the seized property was already handed over to Forest Department for taking necessary action under the provisions of A.P. Forest Act, 1967.
5. Now according to Section 44 [2-A] Forest Officer has powers to order confiscation of the seized property. According to Section 44 [2-E] an appeal is provided to the District Court against confiscation order passed under section 44 [2-A] or [2-D]. In view of these provisions, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the concerned Forest Officer and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the Forest Officer, he can file an appeal before the concerned District Court. Without availing this remedy, the petitioner has straight away approached the Magistrate seeking interim custody and challenging that order, present criminal petition is filed.
6. On a perusal of the material, the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the application, as the petitioner has not availed the remedy available under section 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967. Therefore, the present criminal petition is disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under section 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967. The Forest Officials have to consider the application to be filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as per the provisions of Section 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 without being influenced with the observations made in this order.
7. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is disposed off.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR.
04/06/2014 I s L HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2166 OF 2012 Circulation No. Date: 04/06/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43