ORDER
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1806/96 in O.R. No. 67/94-95 of Kodur Range on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate, Rajampet. The facts in brief are as follows :
2. The Forest Range Officer, Koduru Range, seized the lorry bearing No. MH31 5382 carrying forest, produce and produced the same before the Divisional Forest Officer, Cudapah. The respondent herein who is said to be the owner of the lorry filed Crl. M.P. No. 1806/94 before the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Rajampet under Section 457, Cr.P.C. for the release of the said vehicle produced before the D.F.O. Cuddapah. The learned Munsiff Magistrate, by his order dated 27-9-1994 ordered for the release of the lorry on condition that the respondent furnish a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 3,00,000/- issued by a nationalised Bank. The respondent filed Crl. R.P. No. 49/94 challenging the quantum of amount as ordered by the learned Munsiff Magistrate. The learned I Addl. Session Judge, Cuddapah, modified the order of the learned Munsiff Magistrate and directed the respondent to give a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and also to deposit the R.C. book of the lorry and other documents and with a direction to produce the lorry as and when required by the Court or by the Division Forest Officer. The State preferred Crl. R.C. No. 16/95 against the said order in Crl. R.P. No. 49/94 but subsequently withdrawn by the Public Prosecutor as the same in not filed against the initial order of the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Rajampet, in Crl. M.P. No. 1806 of 1994. The petitioner is now challenging the proceedings of the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Rajampet.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the sized lorry along with forest produce was produced before the Divisional Forest Officer, Cuddapah, and not before the learned Munsiff Magistrate and under Section 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, it is only the Authorised Officer that is Competent either to confiscate the crime vehicle or release the crime vehicle pending investigation in a case and that the learned Munsiff Magistrate or the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge have no jurisdiction to order the release of the crime vehicle. He also relied on the decision of the Division Bench in The Divisional Forest Officer, Warangal (South Division), Warangal v. The District Sessions Judge, Warangal, (1985) 1 APLJ 47. The learned Public Prosecutor also contends that a decision reported A.W.R. 1981 (2) (sic) which has been relied by the learned Munsiff Magistrate is no longer a good law. The learned counsel for the respondent conceeded to the legal position after seeing the Division Bench decision cited above.
4. The provisions of Chapter VII of the A.P. Forest Act, as amended by Amending Act 17 of 1976, clearly disclose that the Legislative wanted to provide, and did provide two different forums, that is, criminal Court which was in existence and new Court which is Authorised Officer. The seizing authority has a discretion to produce the seized forest produce and the crime vehicle etc., either before the authorised officer, or before the Magistrate. The proceedings before the authorised officer and the proceedings before the Magistrate are entirely different and distinct proceedings. In the instant case, the FRO, Koduru Range, produced the seized vehicle carrying forest produce before the DFO and not before the Magistrate. Therefore, it is the DFO that is empowered to confiscate or release the seized crime vehicle and the produce. The learned Munsiff Magistrate who ordered for the release of the crime lorry has no jurisdiction to pass such an order and the I Addl. Sessions Judge has also no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against order for the release passed by the learned Munsiff Magistrate. The Division Bench in the above (1985 (1) APLJ 47) (supra) case held that, “the learned Sessions Judge has no revisory powers over the orders of the authorised officer, probably, he can entertain an appeal against the final orders passed by the authorised officer. The revisory powers are in fact, given to some other authority under sub-section (2-D). We must, therefore, hold that the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction. It may be pointed out that, in case the produce and the vehicle are produced before a Magistrate the learned Sessions Judge may well interfere in exercise of his revisory powers but certainly not when the seized forest produce or the vehicle is not produced before a Magistrate.” The Munsiff Magistrate has no power to release the vehicle by his orders in Crl. M.P. No. 1806/94 as the seized crime vehicle was not produced before him. Hence the order passed by the learned Munsiff Magistrate is set aside. Accordingly the petition is allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, in pursuance, of the order of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, in Crl. R.P. No. 49/94, respondent gave a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 1,50,000/- and that the respondent may be permitted to withdrew the said Bank Gurantee as the order passed in Crl. M.P. 1806/94 has been set aside. The respondent is entitled to get back the bank gurantee amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, if he had already furnished by him and if the vehicle is not released in his favour.
6. Petition allowed.