TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that specific provisions having been made in the Act, the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts must be held to be excluded. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenges the legality of the aforesaid order and contends that the special statute, namely, the Orissa Forest Act, does not exclude the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts in the matter of release of the seized property and the learned Magistrate, therefore, committed gross illegality in rejecting his application for release, 3. Mr. Rath, the learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that in view of the specific provisions in the Act, more particularly, Secs. 56, 57 and 58, of the same, the normal jurisdiction of the criminal courts under the Criminal P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') mus1 be held to be excluded in relation to the matters for which provision has been made in the special statute itself. The rival contentions require careful examination of different provisions of the Code as well as the Act pertainine to release of the seized property, particularly when there is no authority on the point of this High Court. 4. Chapter XXXIV of the Code deals w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal of the property seized. Section 59 deals with confiscation of the seized property. Section 60 is the provision dealing with disposal of the property after conclusion of trial. Section 61 deals with the procedure when the offender is unknown or cannot be found and Section 62 envisages power of magistrate to deal with perishable properties seized under Section 56. These provisions in the Act are more or less a complete code by themselves dealing with the seizure of property used in the commission of a forest offence and the disposal of the same. For the sake of convenience, the aforesaid provisions of the Act are, quoted hereinbelow in extenso:-. 56. Seizure of property liable to confiscation:- (1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any forest officer or police officer. (2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized, and shall an soon as may be, except where the offender agrees in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer under Sub-section (2-a), either suo rnotu or on application, call for and examine the records of the case and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and pass such orders as he may think fit : Provided that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard. (2-e) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under Sub-section (2-a) or Sub-section (2-d) may, within thirty days from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property has been seized, and the District Judge shall after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, pass such order as he may think fit and the order of the District Judge so passed shall be final. (3) The property seized under this section shall be kept in the custody of a Forest Officer or with any third party, until the compensation for compounding the offence is paid or until an order of the Magistrate directing its disposal is received, Explanation- For the purpose of this section and Section 59, cattle shall not include buffaloes, cows, calves and oxen. 57. Power to release property seized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all cause a notice of any application made under this section to be served upon any person who, he has reason to believe is interested in the property seized, or shall publish such notice in such manner as he thinks fit. Provided further that no such order shall be made until the expiration of one month from the date of seizing such property or without hearing the person, if any, claiming any right thereto, and the evidence, if any, which he may produce in support of his claim. 62. Procedure as to perishable property seized under Section 56:- The Magistrate may,, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, direct the sale of any property seized under Section 56 which is subject to speedy and natural decay, and may deal with the proceeds as he would have dealt with such property if it has not been sold. Provided that if in the opinion of the officer seizing such property, it is not possible to obtain the orders of the Magistrate in time, such officer may sell the property, remit the sale proceeds to the nearest Government treasury and make a report to the Magistrate and thereupon the Magistrate shall take such measure as may be necessary for the trial of the accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In my opinion, the amended provisions of Section 6A of the Act impliedly limit the powers of the criminal Court in the matter of disposal of foodgrains etc. which are seized in contravention of the Act and orders, whether or not prosecution is instituted against the accused. There is no condition precedent for making the order of confiscation that a prosecution case should be pending. This is so clear from Section 6A itself. Therefore, the provisions of the Criminal P.C. will not come into play and even without prosecution case being launched, the Collector will have the power to confiscate and also to deal with the property, may be by selling the same in public interest. Where a statute specifies a particular mode of enforcing a new obligation created by it, such obligation can, as a general rule, be enforced in no other manner than that provided by the statute. Therefore, in my opinion, there can be no relevancy of Section 516-A of the Criminal P.C. To the same effect is the decision of the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) in the case of Om Prakash Sao v. State of Bihar 1979 BLJR 312. Of course in that case, the learned Judge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This view of the Division Bench did not find favour with the Supreme Court and in Civil Appeal No. 1216 of 1979 (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Smt. Jahi Behum), the Supreme Court by order dated 23rd April, 1979, held :- In our opinion on the facts and circumstances of this case the order of the High Court is not fit to be sustained. The High Court has taken an erroneous view of the report made by the Forest Ranger to the Magistrate while forwarding the accused to him. The proceedings as to the confiscation of the property seized as also the car has got to go on before the Divisional Forest Officer. He will decide the matter and unprejudiced by anything that has been said in the judgment of the High Court. Thereafter, if necessary, it will be open to the respondents to file an appeal before the District Court.... Thus it is abundantly clear from the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court that the power to pass orders regarding disposal of the seized property lies with the authorities under the Forest Act and not with the court by invoking the provisions of the Criminal P.C. In my view, therefore, when any forest produce together with the vehicle used in committing any for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
