IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O Nos. 121 and 122 of 2006 Date of decision: 30.6.2009 (1) Cr. MMO No.121 of 2006 Jagdish Chand Versus State of H.P. (2) Cr. MMO No.122 of 2006 Chhabelu Devi Versus State of H.P. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner (s) : Mr. I.D. Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Virender Bali, Advocate in both the petitions. For respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, in both petitions. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Both the above tiled petitions are being disposed of by this common order, as both of them have similar facts and similar questions of law have been raised therein. 3. Two vehicles, one belonging to Jagdish Chand, petitioner in Cr. MMO No.121 of 2006 and another, belonging to Chhabelu Devi, petitioner in Cr. MMO No.122 of 2006, were found carrying timber of illicit origin, around 2.30 AM, on 16.1.2005, near Bhuntar in Kullu District. The vehicles were seized. Case was registered, under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act and Section 379 IPC. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 4. It was nobody’s case that the timber, which was being carried, was property of the State Government. Petitioners made applications to Authorized Officer, appointed for the purpose of Section 52-A of Indian Forest Act, as amended by Act No.15 of 1991, by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Authorized Officer rejected the applications, holding that since the vehicles were involved in the commission of offence, relating to illicit transportation of forest produce, the same should not be released, pending disposal of the case. 5. Appeal was filed against the aforesaid order of the Authorized Officer, under Section 59 of the Indian Forest Act, in the Court of Sessions. Appeal has been dismissed with the reasoning that the same is not maintainable. Learned Sessions Judge also made observation that probably applications did not lie to the Authorized Officer, under Section 52-A. 6. This Court passed an interim order dated 20.3.2007, releasing vehicle on supurdari. 7. Admittedly, it is nobody’s case that forest produce, which was allegedly being transported in the two vehicles, was the property of State Government. Therefore, applications should not have been made to the Authorized Officer, appointed, under Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, as amended by Act No.15 of 1991, by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Seizure was required to be reported to the Magistrate, having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 52, as substituted by Act No.15 of 1991, by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioners ought to have approached the Magistrate, to whom seizure was required to be reported, per aforesaid clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 52 of …3… the Indian Forest Act, for release of the vehicles and such applications should have been made, under Section 451 Cr. P.C. 8. In view of the above stated position, present petitions are disposed of with the order that the petitioners may, within one month from today, approach the concerned Magistrate, under Section 451 Cr. P.C, for release of their vehicles. In case they make applications within one month from today, interim order dated 20.3.207, passed by this Court, shall remain operative, pending disposal of those applications, by the Magistrate. In case such applications are not made to the Magistrate, the aforesaid order dated 20.3.2007, shall cease to be operative, on expiry of one month period from today and petitioners shall surrender the vehicles to the police. Both the petitions stand disposed of. Copy Dasti. June 30, 2009 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J