High Court Orissa High Court

Kumuda Chandra Naik vs State Of Orissa on 31 March, 2004

Orissa High Court
Kumuda Chandra Naik vs State Of Orissa on 31 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004 I OLR 701
Author: A Naidu
Bench: A Naidu

JUDGMENT

A.S. Naidu, J.

1. This application has been filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 19.7.2000 passed by the J.M.F.C, Khariar in 2(b) CC No. 5 of 2000 refusing to release a vehicle seized in connection with alleged commission of a Forest Offence.

2. It was stated that the petitioner was the President of a Kalyan Samiti, namely, Maa Gandhini Krusak Kalayan Samiti, and a Commandar Jeep bearing registration number 0R-08-A-0067 was purchased for the said samiti in a Group Finance Scheme. The said jeep was purchased and registered in the name of the petitioner, he being the President of the Samiti. On the relevant date the said jeep was given on hire for carrying passengers, but then on its way the same was searched by Forest Officials and it was found that teak planks were being transported in it without permission of the concerned authorities. The Forester of Patialpara Section seized the said vehicle and forwarded the accused persons implicated in commission of offence under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act. A confiscation proceeding was also initiated.

3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a petition was filed by him under Section 457 Cr P.C. before the Court below with a prayer to release the seized jeep. Learned J.M.F.C. by the impugned order declined to release the seized jeep in view of pendency of a confiscation proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Court below is contrary to the ratio of an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Baikuntha Bihari Mohapatra v. State 2000 (I) OLR 1 74. In the said decision it was held that once seizure of vehicle is reported to a Magistrate or the seized vehicle is produced before him, power lies with the Magistrate to release the vehicle or property seized.

4. Learned counsel for the State, at the other hand, strongly repudiated the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the vehicle in question was seized while illegally transporting fifty-five pieces of hand-dressed teak planks without any permit. It was further submitted that a confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act was initiated and the Authorised Officer-Cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Khariar by a well-discussed order directed that the jeep along with the fifty-five pieces of teak planks be confiscated to the State as per Section 56 and 59 of the Orissa Forest Act. The Range Officer, Sinapalli was directed to put the confiscated properties in auction sale and deposit the sale proceeds in Govt. Treasury. In view of the fact that in the meanwhile the confiscation proceeding has come to an end and an authority under the Forest Act has directed confiscation of the vehicle, no order under Section 457 Cr.P.C. can be passed.

The Criminal Misc. case is accordingly dismissed.