IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 914 of 2005 Rasid Ahmad …..…..Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal and another. …….….…..Respondents. Present: Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 2. Date of Decision : 31.8.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 26.9.2005 passed by of the learned Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2005 Forest Ranger Gola Forest Division Vs. Rasid Ahmad and another, whereby the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani dated 11.8.2005 by which certain timber logs, which were the subject matter of criminal proceeding were released in favour of the applicant, has been set aside and the application for release of the forest produce has been rejected. There were as many as 33 timber logs, which were found with the applicant and the applicant was charged under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. and Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the matter proceeded against the applicant. The sole ground on which the timber was released in favour of the applicant by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani is that the Forest Department had not been able to prove as to from which forest reserved area the said trees were felled. In view of the Revision Court, as also, in view of this Court these were not the grounds, on which the said timber logs were liable to be released in favour of the applicant. The learned Sessions Judge, Nainital has rightly allowed the revision of the Forest Department and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate, Haldwani. In fact, the learned Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to release the goods in view of the amendment made 2 by the State of Uttarakhand being the Indian Forest (Uttaranchal Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act No. 10 of 2002), whereby Section 52 D, inter alia, has been inserted after the original Section. Section 52 D reads as follows: “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 authorized 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.” 3. In view of the aforesaid provision, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani had no jurisdiction in the matter and the order passed by him was itself without jurisdiction. The Revisional Court has, therefore, rightly interfered with the matter and has rightly set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani. There is no scope for this Court to interfere with the order dated 26.9.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Revision no. 25 of 2005. The instant C-482 application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 4. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 31.08.2010 Rathour