IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1590 of 2010 1. SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD 2. ANAND RAJ PETIIONERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey-I For the State :Mr. P.K.Chaurasia, APP ----------- 03. 20.01.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioners claim ownership of the three vehicles bearing registration mark and numbers bearing BR-21C-8551, BR021D-5851 and CG-04-JB-7206. Aforesaid vehicles were allegedly used for carrying Silka stones which is a prohibited items under the Indian forest Act,1927 as a result whereof an FIR was lodged on 20.07.2010 under diverse sections of the Penal Code, section 4 of MMDR Act, Rule 4/40 of BMCC Rule, and sections 26, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Petitioners applied for release of the aforesaid three vehicles on diverse grounds before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger. A report was called for from the concerned Investigating officer/Police Officer wherefrom it appeared that a proceeding in terms of section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act,1927 had already been initiated in respect of the three vehicles as well as the goods laden thereon. Learned Magistrate having noticed the same, rejected the application for release of the three vehicles giving rise to the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2 FIR has been lodged under different sections of the Penal Code, section 4 of MMDR Act, Rule 4/40 of BMCC Rule, and under diverse sections of the Indian Forest Act. The confiscation having been made in connection with a case instituted under the Penal Code also this Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain the application and direct for release of the vehicles, particularly when the courts have taken consistent view that continued seizure of such vehicles shall neither be in the interest of the nation nor the party. It is thus submitted that this Court may exercise its jurisdiction conferred under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and direct for release of the vehicles. Learned counsel also made submissions on the merit of the case in order to convince the Court that the petitioners are only the transporters and they have also fallen prey to the evil design of the accused(s) of the case. Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that once a proceeding for confiscation has been initiated in terms of section 52 of the Indian Forest Act,1927, this Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain such application in view of the bar created under section 52 (c) of the Act. Section 52 (c) of the Act reads as follows: “52C. Bar of jurisdiction of Courts etc. in certain circumstances.- (1) On receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of Section 52 about initiation of proceeding for confiscation of property by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property which is subject matter of confiscation, has been made, no Court, or Tribunal (other than the authorized officer, Appellate Authority and Revision Authority 3 referred to in Sections 52,52A and 52B) shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which proceeding for confiscation or any other law for the time being in force.” I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Petitioners are facing prosecution under diverse sections of the Indian Forest Act. The provisions of the Forest Act amply provides for confiscation of not only the prohibited goods but also the vehicle on which such goods were found being carried. Section 52(c) of the said Act provides a bar. It is admitted position that proceeding for confiscation has already been initiated. Petitioners shall have adequate opportunity to raise all these issues before the confiscating authority in order to convince him that there is no material on record to show prima facie case suggesting collusion of the petitioners with the main offender(s). The Act further provides remedy by filing appeal against such adjudication to be made of the Authority under the Indian Forest Act. Having regard to the provisions contained in section 52 (c) of the Act, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction. Petitioners may approach the concerned/designated official(s) of the forest department where the confiscation proceeding is going on and satisfy the said authority for the release of the vehicles in question. Needless to observe that if the competent authority 4 under the Indian Forest Act ultimately decides to drop the confiscation proceeding so far as the three vehicles in question are concerned, then the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate or the court in seisin of the matter shall consider release of the vehicles on furnishing appropriate security/bank guarantee to his own satisfaction after verifying the documents of ownership. The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation/direction. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )