Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16109 of 2019 Applicant :- Radharam Tiwari Alias Radharam Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Sekhar Pandey,Ashok Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the materials available on record.
By means of this application under sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order dated 1.4.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadrda in Case No. 04 of 2018-2019 (Radharam Tiwari vs. State) under Sections 5/26 and 41/42 Indian Forest Act, Obra Van Prabhag, Obra, district Sonbhadra, whereby release application of the applicant has been rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is owner of the vehicle in question bearing registration No. UP-64-P-3812, which was seized by the Forest Officers in Case No. 04 of 2018-2019, under Sections 5/26 and 41/42 Indian Forest Act.
It is next submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that since there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle, therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra has committed legal error in rejecting the release application of the applicant. Therefore, impugned order dated 1.4.2019 is not sustainable under the law and liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions by contending that in view of Section 52-D of the Indian Forest Act, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The Section 52-D of the Indian Forest Act creates a complete bar to release the vehicle by the Magistrate concerned, which is reproduced herein below:-
"52-D. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases.-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, whenever any forest produce belonging to the State Government together with any tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or other article is seized under sub-section (1) of Section 52, the authorised officer under Section 52-A or the State Government under Section 52-B shall have jurisdiction, to the exclusion of every other officer, court, Tribunal or authority, to make orders with regard to the custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property."
I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record as well as impugned order dated 1.4.2019, I find force in the submissions advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the impugned order dated 1.4.2019 has made an observation that the vehicle in question No. UP-64-P- 3812 has already been confiscated by order dated 11.2.2019 and said order dated 11.2.2019 has not been further challenged by the applicant in appeal.
In view of above, I do not find any manifest error of law or perversity in the impugned order dated 1.4.2019. The applicant has an alternative remedy to challenge the confiscation order dated 11.2.2019 in appeal, therefore, there is no good ground to interfere in the matter.
The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Sumaira