: INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CH APPLICANT \ TISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. ^r Cr. M.P. Nov Mahavir Prasad Agrawal S/o Kanwar Lal Agrawal Age- 48 Years R/o Ganj pichhe, Kharsiya Tah. & P.S. Kharsiya Distt.- Raigarh C.G. 710 VERSUS NON- APPLICANTS \\p ...•( ^•^£^ <~<.*'\v'^,*" ..-••'r".^<^'-"'\-o ^..-•""^ •""'^>^-^iyA" ^•^^^..-•••""^^".^' <^^- '^^..- '^" 1. StateofChhattisgarh Through : Distt. Magistrate, Raigarh, C.G. 2. , Station House Officer Police Station Chhal Distt Raigarh,C.G. 3. Forest Officer Chhal Forest Area Chhal Distt. Raigarh C.G. APPLICATION U/S 482 QF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE HiGnCOURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. APPLICANT i PET'TSONER NON-APPLiCANTS /RESPQNDENT Cr.M.P. N0.472(2010 Mahavir Prasad Agrawai Versus Sfate of Chhattisgarh and others APPLiCATiON UNDER SECTIOS 482 OF THE COSE OF CRiafliNAL PROCEDURE. 1873 Present: - Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Pane! Lawyer for the State/respondents- ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12th of November, 2010) This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.G. is directed against the order dated 14/07/2010 oassed by the Sessions Judae. Raigarh in Criminai Revision No.82/10, whereby order dated 2/6/10 passed by the Magistrate rejecting petitioner's appiication for custody ofvehicie has been confinned. 2. Assailing the correctness and validity of proceedings of the Court beiow vfflereby petitioner's appiication for custody of vehicie has been rejected and thereafter confirmed by the impugneu order, iearnad counsel for the peiitioner argued that even ttiough no intimation as required under Section 52 (4) of the indian Forest Act was received by the learned Magistrate, the iearned Magistrate rejected nie appiication on the ground that on receipt of intimation dated 1f'4/10, nflagistrate has no jurisdiction to pass ordere regarding custody of the vehicie. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submite that indmation dated 1/4/10 which has been made basis by Uie Courts beiow to reject the apptication, cannot be said to be one as required under the law, so as to oust ftie jurisdiction under I '%SSBC-11 '%. 'tea..^^ ¥",.^ the.teetu of provisions contained in Section 52 C ofthe Act of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1927"). 3. On the other hand, submission of iearned State counsel is that from the order passed by the Magistrate on 2/6/10 and that of the Revisionai Court passed on 14/07/10, it is cieariy reflected that an intimation as required under Section 52 C was received by the Magistrate on 1/4/10 and therefore the bar under Section 52 C is attracted and ouste the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to deal with the seized property aiieged to be used in commission of forest offence. 4. Reading of provision contained in Section 52 C of the Act of 1927 wouid go to show that on receipt of intimation under Section 52 (4), about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of properiy by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property which is subject matter of connscation, has been made, no Court, Tribunai or Authority (other than authorised officer), Appeiiate Autiiority and Court of Sessions referred to in Sections 52, 52-A and 52-B shail have jurisdiction to mak®ordere wllti regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated under Section 52, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act, or in any other iaw for the time being in foroe. 5. A piain reading of the aforesaid provision wouid mean that a bar of jurisdiction wouid be atfracted 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 shali be made under sub Section (3) uniess authorised officer sends an intimation in fomi prescribed about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the property to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the oifence on account of which the seizure has been made. Therefore, the law requires that the intimation shouid be in respect of initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the property. Any other kind of intimation inciuding intimation of comrnission of forest offence forwarded to the Magistrate vrouid 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 notice in writing to the person from whom the property is seized and to any other person who may appear to ha'v'e some interest in such property. Therefore, uniess proceedings of connscation are initiated and an intimation regarding initiation of such proceedings are received by the concerned Magistrate, his jurisdiciton is not ousted as in the absence of receipt of any such intirnation, the bar undsr Section 52-C is not attracted. 6. From the perusai of the order sheets of tiie Magistrate which are piaced on record as Annexure A/4 as aiso the order dated 2/6/10 as aiso from ttie order of the Re'visionai Court, aii that is disciosed is that an intirnation regarding commission or forest offence was sent to the Magistrate on 1/4/10. In the repiy of the respondent aiso, this fact has been admitted as it has been stated that on 1/4/10, the seized articies were handed over to the forest department by police stetion-Chhai as the matter reiated to forest department and intimation regarding the same was given to the Judicial Magistrate, 151 Class; Dharamjaygarh on 1/4/10. Though it has been stated that the said intimation was one under Section 52 of the indian Forest Act, 1927, intimation cannot be described to the intimation of initiation of confiscation proceedings. The proceedings of confiscaflon can be \ ^S"g!;~^^.iS^^;j.ffi': initiated upon issuance of nofee as specifled under Section 52 of the Act of 1927. On 25/10/10, time was granted to the State to submit information with regard to initiation of confiscation proceedings. State has not come out with any nev/ materiai whereas the petitioner has piaced on record a notice dated 27/10/10 (Annexure A/8) issued by competent authority proposing confiscation. Thus, it is ciear that tiii 27/10/10, no connscatton proceedings were initiateci, therefore there was no occasion for the forest department to send any intimation regarding initiation of conflscation on 1/4/10. 7. Consequentiy, receipt of such an intimation wouiu not amount to receipt of intimation regarding initiation of confiscation proceedings and the bar of jurisdiction as provided under Section 52-C of the Act of 1927 would not be attracted. 8. in view of the aforesaid discussion, 1 am of the considered opinion that the iearned Magistrate refused to exercise jurisdiction to entertain the application by wrongiy hoiding that the bar under Seetion 52-C has been attracted. The order passed by the Magistrate on 2/6/10 and that of Revisional Court thersfore cannot be sustained in law and is set aside. The matter is remanded back to ttie concemed Magistrate for appropriate decision on petitioners appiication for disposal of seized property. The Magistrate shaii decide the same within a period of three weete from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The revisiojLJs accordingiy aiioweu. —M£.shri"SBVa \