9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proceedings for confiscation of the seized vehicle and, as such, the provisions of Section 47-D of the Act, 1915 squarely attracts expressly barring the jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate to grant interim custody under Section 457 of the Code, the trial Magistrate ceased to have jurisdiction to make order from the date when he received intimation in the preset case i.e. 28.8.2014 to make any order about the disposal of the said vehicle and, as such, the trial Magistrate has rightly held that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant custody after initiation and intimation of the said confiscation proceedings to the Court having jurisdiction; and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is absolutely justified in affirming the order passed by the trial Magistrate refusing to interfere with the said order, as such, order passed by the learned Magistrate and duly affirmed by the revisional Court is based on the material available on record, which does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, the judgment relied upon by Mr. Pradhan passed by this Court in [Sujeet Kumar Khandekar 2015 (2) TMI 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t entitled for custody in view of express bar contained in Section 47-D of the Act of 1915 as it has already been intimated by the Collector to the trial Magistrate about the initiation of the confiscation proceedings. (5) Learned trial Magistrate, by its order dated 18.09.2014, rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein for custody of the vehicle holding that the confiscation proceedings has already been initiated by the Collector under Section 47-A of the Act, 1915 and intimation has been sent to trial Court having jurisdiction to try the offences, therefore, interim custody of the said vehicle cannot be granted to the petitioner. (6) Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the order of learned Magistrate, petitioner preferred revision before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund. (7) The revisional Court, by its impugned order dated 12.11.2014, concurred with the findings recorded by trial Magistrate finding inter alia that in exercise of power conferred under Section 47-A (3) (a) of the Act of 1915, Collector has already sent an intimation on 28.08.2014 to the trial Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offences on account of which seizure has been made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l available on record with utmost circumspection. (12) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record following facts would emerge :- (i) The petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04/HB-2513 and the said vehicle was seized by the Police Station, Saraipali in connection with Crime No. 281/14 on 16.06.2014 for commission of offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Act of 1915 transporting 126 liters of country made liquor. (ii) The Collector, Mahasamund has initiated the proceeding for confiscation of the said vehicle vide Revenue Case No. 206-B/121 year 2013-14; and in exercise of power conferred under clause (a) of sub- Section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act of 1915 sent an intimation about the initiation of the proceedings for confiscation of the seized vehicle to the trial Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offences on 28th August, 2014, on account of which seizure has been made. (iii) Thereafter, petitioner made an application for custody of vehicle in question before the trial Magistrate. (13) At this stage, it would be proper to notice Section 47-D of the Act 1915, which reads thus : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en committed. In view of this, the Forest Deptt. Was finding it difficult to curb the forest offences effectively and quickly in spite of the fact that large scale smuggling of forest produce was on the increase. Hence; it was thought necessary to empower officials of the Forest Deptt. Seizing any property under Sub-section(1) of Section 44, instead of merely making a report of seizure to the Magistrate also to order confiscation of timber of forest produce seized with all the tools, boats, vehicles, etc. used in committing such offences. The intendment of the Legislature in enacting Act17 of 1976 was, therefore, to provide for two separate proceedings before two independent forums in the Act, one for confiscation by a departmental authority exercising quasi-judicial powers conferred under Sub-section (2-A) of Section 44 of the goods forming the subject-matter of the offence and the other for the trial of the person accused of the offence so committed……. It would, therefore, appear that there can be no conflict of jurisdiction between the authorised officer acting under Sub-section (2-A) of Section 44 of the Act to direct confiscation of the property seized under Sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a legislative device to give effect to the enacting part of section in case of conflict over the provisions mentioned in the non-obstante clause. Hence, Sections 451, 452 and 457 of the Code must yield to the provisions of the Act and there is no escape from the conclusion that the Magistrate or for that matter the High Court, while dealing with the case of seizure of vehicle under the Act, has any power to pass an order dealing with the interim custody of the vehicle on security or its release thereof. The view which we have taken finds support from a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. K.A. Kunchinddammed, (2002) 9 SCC 90." (18) The Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Shrish Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. 2003 (2) MPHT 97 while examining the constitutional validity of Section 47-D of the Act, has held that the provisions regarding confiscation of seized intoxicants and articles; debarring the criminal court from ordering disposal of the property as well as the restriction on the powers of the appellate authority to stay the order of confiscation is a valid piece of legislation. (19) Bearing in mind the principles of law flowi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
