% Single Bancfr IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAMIATMLASPUR C.G, Cr. M.P. No. -^ C<a /l 1 APPLICANT ? ^.^-l-[L^ ^-^^s^^ ^w^s^ Oated..--"-"/ VERSUS Admon Kujur S/o Paulus Kujur Age- 30 Years R/o Village- Kaya Tah. & P.S. Gharghoda Distt.- Raigarh C.G. NON- APPLICANTS State of Chhattisgarh Through: Distt. Magistrate, Raigarh, C.G. Forest Range Officer - Bakaruma Circle- Bakaruma Distt. Raigarh C.G. APPLICATION U/S 482 OF Cr.P.C. FOR SUPURDNAMA OF THE SEIZED VEHICLE ^i^S^ • ^ v •^^^' r\~^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bleShri Manindra iWohan Shrivastava, J. Applicant Respondents Cr.M.P.No.366/2011 Admon Kujur Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for supurdnama ofthe seized vehicle Present:- Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, counsel for the applicant. Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 12-09-2011) Heard. 2. This petition has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by order dated 21-06-2011 passed by the Revisional Court, by whieh, the order passed by the Magistrate on 07-05-2011 rejecting application of the applicant for grant of interim custody ofthe vehicle, has been affirmed. 3. Assailing the correctness and validity of the order passed by the Court below, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Magistrate acted illegally in rejecting the application for grant of interim custody of the vehicle on the ground that the proceedings of confiscation have been initiated before the Confiscating Authority and his jurisdiction, is therefore, ousted in view of the provisions contained in Section 52(C) ofthe Indian Forest Act, 1927. He submits that the mere intimation of commission of forest offence, does not amount to initiation of confiscation proceedings as held in the case of Mahavir Prasad Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, decided by this Court on 12-11- 2010 in Cr.M.P.No.472 of 2010. Learned counsel submits that this Court directed the respondents to verify the date, on which, show cause notice has been issued to the applicant, and in reply, now stated before the Court that the show cause 1 B;'.' • '"-- %• (_ notice has been issued to the applicant on 30-08-2011. In his submission, this would clearly mean that the date, on which, the applicant's application was rejected, the confjscation proceedings were not initiated. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the reasons, for which, learned Courts below have rejected the application of the applicant are relevant as the intimation was given on 30-03-2011 to the Magistrate that confiscation proceedings are in contemplation, and therefore, the Magistrate rightly rejected the application. 5. In the case of Mahavir Prasad Agrawal (supra), this Court has held:- 5. "A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would mean that a bar of jurisdiction would be attracted in case of receipt of intimation of the nature specified in the provision under Section 52 (4) which provides that no order of confiscating any property shall be made under sub Section (3) unless authorised officer sends an intimation in form prescribed about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the property to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. Therefore, the law requires that the intimation should be in respect of initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the property. Any other kind of intimation including intimation of commission of forest offence forwarded to the Magistrate would not be a substitute of the requirements of intimation regarding initiation of confiscation proceedings. From the statutory scheme engrafted under Section 52 of the Act, confiscation proceedings can be initiated upon issuance of a noticein writing to the person from whom the property is seized and to any other person who may appear to have some interest in such property. Therefore, unless proceedings of confiscation are initiated and an intimation regarding initiation of such proceedings are received by the concerned Magistrate, his jurisdiction is not ousted as in the absence of receipt of any such intimation, the bar under Section 52-C is not attracted." ; e Tumane 6. The fact situation of the present case are also similar. In view of the statement, which has now been made by the learned State counsel, it is clear that by way of issuance of show cause notice to the applicant on 30-08-2011, confiscation proceedings have been initiated and earlier intimation given was only with regard to commission of offence, which does not satisfy the requirement of law with regard to initiation of proceedings. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned Courts below are declared illegal and hereby set aside. However, considering that the confiscation proceedings have atready been initiated, instead of remanding the matter for re-consideration by the Magistrate, liberty is given to the applicant to move appropriate application for grant of interim custody of the vehicle before the Confiscating Authority. On such application being made, the Confiscating Authority shall decide the same within a period of 15 days, taking into consideration that the vehicle is a tractor necessary for agricultural operations and has been kept idle for last six months. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge