SAGRIKA AGRAWAL v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 25 Sep 2025
- Bench
- RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Indian Forest Act, 1927 ss. 52, 52(4)(b)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 386, 397, 399, 401, 401(1)
- Madhya Pradesh Act
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 2(30)
Key paragraphs
- Para 1313. The learned Sessions Court has considered the provisions of Section 52(4) (b) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and held that the finance company of the vehicle is the necessary party to be heard before passing the order of confiscation, but no evidence have…
- Para 1414. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. sagrika Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge
Judgment
The present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”), is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14-08-2025, passed by the learned 2 Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Revision No. 147/2025, whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner is allowed and after setting aside the orders dated 28-10-2024 and 23-03-2024, the matter is remitted back to the Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), Dongargarh, for deciding the case afresh after following the mandatory provision of Section 52 (4)(b) and (c) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
The subject matter, in brief, is that during the patrolling, the forest officers tried to intercept the Bolero Pickup Vehicle bearing registration No. CG 08 AU 1843, near Totalbhari Gothan, Dhara-Lakhna forest way, but he fled away. In search of the vehicle, it was found near village Gheekudiya and found that the Teak wood was being unloaded from the said vehicle. The vehicle has been seized under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Chhattisgarh Vanopaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam 1969, and Chhattisgarh Abhivahan (Vanopaj) Adhiniyam, 2001. The matter was referred to by the letter No. 522, dated 08-04-2024, for the proceeding of confiscation of the vehicle in question, to the SDO (Forest), Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon.
The SDO (Forest), Dongargarh, after recording evidence of the parties and hearing them, found that the Teak wood was illegally transported by the said Bolero vehicle and passed the order of confiscation of the said Bolero vehicle No. CG 08 AU 1843, on 28-10-2024 by exercising its powers under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The order dated 28-10-2024 passed by SDO (Forest), Dongargarh, was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Appellate Authority/Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg, and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 25-04-2025. The orders dated 28-10-2024 and 25-04-2025 have been challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 147/2025, before the learned Sessions Judge, Durg. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the criminal revision filed by the petitioner on 14-08-2025, and remitted the matter back to the SDO (Forest), Dongargarh, for its fresh decision in accordance with the 3 law after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the finance company of the said Bolero vehicle, i.e. Mahindra Finance Company, under the mandatory provisions of Section 52 (4)(b) and (c) of the Indian Forest Act,
1927. Hence, this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the said Bolero vehicle No. CG 08 AU 1843, and he is entitled to its possession. The finance company is not the necessary party in the proceeding, and it is not required to be heard before passing any order. Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, has not been followed by the forest authorities, and therefore, the order of confiscation of the subject vehicle cannot be passed. He would also submit that the revisional Court has no power under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, to remand the matter to the authorities to pass the order afresh. It is further submitted by him that the revisional Court has only the power to confirm, set aside or vary the order passed by a subordinate authority, but does not have the power of remand. If the revisional Court was of the opinion that the mandatory provisions had not been followed, he ought to have allowed the revision and set aside the confiscation order of the vehicle. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions of the petitioner and submits that the order passed by the learned revisional Court is well within its jurisdiction as provided under Sections 52-B (4) and Section 52 (4) (b) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. While exercising the revisional powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the revisional Court also has the power to remit the matter back for fresh adjudication, which it has rightly done in the case. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition and gone through the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The main contention of the petitioner is that the revisional Court has no power to remand the matter back to the authorities concerned for fresh consideration. The undisputed facts of the case are that the SDO (Forest) has passed the order of confiscation of the subject vehicle, the appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority/Chief Conservator of Forest, and the Criminal Revision was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the SDO (Forest) for fresh decision in the matter after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the finance company of the subject vehicle.
It is necessary here to reproduce the provisions of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, along with the Madhya Pradesh State Amendment incorporated vide Madhya Pradesh Act 25 of 1983, and Section 52-A and 52- B of the Indian Forest Act, which has been incorporated by the Madhya Pradesh State Amendment, vide Madhya Pradesh Act 25 of 1983, w.e.f. 01- 01-1983, which reads as under:- “52- Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure therefor. - (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, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article 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, as soon as may be, either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) or where it is, having regard to quantity or bulk or other genuine difficulty, not practicable to produce the property seized before the authorised officer, make a report about the seizure to the authorised officer, or where it is intended to launch criminal proceedings against the offender immediately, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made: 5 Provided that when the forest-produce with respect to which such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of Government, and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstance to his official superior.
(3) Subject to sub-section (5), where the authorised officer upon production before him of property seized or upon receipt of report about seizure, as the case may be, is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded confiscate forest produce so seized together with all tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing such offence. A copy of the order of confiscation shall be forwarded without any undue delay to the Conservator of Forests of the forest-circle in which the timber or forest produce, as the case may be, has been seized. (4) No order confiscating any property shall be made under sub- section (3) unless the authorised officer- (a) sends an intimation in form prescribed about initiation of proceedings for confiscating of property to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made; (b) issues a notice in writing to the person from whom the property is seized and to any other person who may appear to the authorised officer to have some interest in such property; (c) affords an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) of making a representation within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the proposed confiscation; and (d) gives to the officer effecting the seizure and the person or persons to whom notice has been issued under clause (b), a hearing on date to be fixed for such purpose.
(5) No order of confiscation under sub-section (3) of any tools, vehicles, boats, chains or any other article (other than timber or forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or connivance or, as the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary 6 precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for commission of forest offence. 52-A . Appeal against the order of confiscation:- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation may, within thirty days of the order, or if the fact of such order has not been communicated to him within thirty days of date of knowledge of such order, prefer an appeal in writing, accompanied by such fee and payable in such form as may be prescribed, and, by certified copy of order of confiscation to the Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as Appellate Authority) of the District in which the forest produce has been seized.
Explanation (1) The time requisite for obtaining certified copy of order of confiscation shall be excluded while computing period of thirty days referred to in this sub-section. (2) The Appellate Authority referred to in sub-section (1) may, where no appeal has been preferred before him, suo motu' within thirty days of date of receipt of copy of order of confiscation by him, and shall on presentation of memorandum of appeal issue a notice for hearing of appeal or, as the case may be, or 'suo motu' action to the officer effecting seizure and to any other person (including appellant, if any) who in the opinion of the Appellate Authority, is likely to be adversely affected by the order of confiscation, and may send for the record of the case : Provided that no formal notice of appeal need be issued to such amongst the appellant, officer effecting seizure and any other person likely to be adversely affected an as aforesaid as may waive the notice or as may be informed in any other manner of date of hearing of appeal by the Appellate Authority (3) The Appellate Authority shall send intimation in writing of lodging of appeal or about suo motu action, to the authorised officer (4) The Appellate Authority may pass such order of interim nature for custody, preservation of disposal (if necessary) of the subject matter of confiscation, as may appear to be just or proper in the circumstances of the case.
(5) The Appellate Authority, having regard to the nature of the case or the complexities involved, may permit parties to the appeal to be represented by respective legal practitioner. 7 (6) On the date fixed for hearing of the appeal or 'suo motu’ action, or on such date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the Appellate Authority shall peruse the record and hear the parties to the appeal if present in person, or through any agent duly authorised in writing or through a legal practitioner, and shall thereafter proceed to pass an order of confirmation, reversal or modification order of confiscation: Provided that before passing any final order the Appellate Authority may if it is considered necessary for proper decision of appeal or for proper disposal of suo motu action, make further inquiry itself or cause it to be made by the authorised officer, and may also allow parties to file affidavits for asserting or refuting any fact that may arise for consideration and may allow proof of facts by affidavits.
(7) The Appellate Authority may also pass such order of consequential nature, as it may deem necessary. (8) Copy of final order or of order of consequential nature, shall be sent to the authorised officer for compliance or for passing any other appropriate order in conformity with the order of Appellate Authority. 52-B. Revisions before Court of Sessions against order of Appellate Authority- (1) Any party to the appeal, aggrieved by final order or order of consequential nature passed by the Appellate Authority, may within thirty days of the order sought to be impugned, submit a petition for revision to the Court of Sessions division whereof the headquarters of the Appellate Authority are situate. Explanation (1) In computing the period of thirty days under this sub- section, the time requisite for obtaining certified copy of order of Appellate Authority shall be excluded. (2) The Court of Session may confirm, reverse or modify any final order or an order of consequential nature passed by the Appellate Authority.
(3) Copies of the order passed in revision shall be sent to the Appellate Authority and to the Authorised Officer for compliance or for passing such further orders or for taking such further orders or for taking such further action as may be directed by such Court. (4) For entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under this section, the Court of Session shall, as far as may be, exercise the same powers and follow the same procedure as it exercises and 8 follows while entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) the order of the Court of Session passed under this section shall be final and shall not be called in question before any Court.
Section 52-B (4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, provides the revisional powers of the Sessions Court and according to which, the Sessions Court shall exercise the same powers, as far as may be, the same procedure as it exercises and follows while entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Sessions Judge’s power of revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is provided in Sections 397 and 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:- Section 397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision .- (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality of propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation. All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further 9 application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. Section 399. Sessions Judge’s powers of revision:- (1) In the case of any proceedings the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge may 399. Sessions Judge's powers of revision. (1) In the case of any proceeding exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of section 401.
(2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-section (1), the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub-sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge. (3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court.
As provided under Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the powers of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, may be applied by the Sessions Judge. From a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 401 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while exercising the powers of revision, the Sessions Court may exercise the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Section 386, 389, 390 and 391 of the Code. Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides that the appellate court may alter or reverse the order under challenge, or may make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just and proper. The powers to remit back the matter in case of appeal against acquittal, conviction or appeal for enhancement of sentence are also there in Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
While deciding the revision, the learned Sessions Court found that the 10 subject vehicle is financed by the Mahindra Finance Company and the petitioner is paying the monthly installment of Rs. 17,500/- to the finance company against its loan. Therefore, the finance company has an interest in the subject vehicle, but it has not been heard before passing the order of confiscation. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the subject Bolero vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is defined in Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under:- Section 2 (30)- “ owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person is possession of the vehicle under that agreement;
From a bare perusal of the definition of “owner” as provided in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it transpires that the person in possession of the vehicle under the hire purchase agreement would be the owner of the vehicle. Since the subject vehicle was purchased under the hire purchase agreement with the finance company, they have a right and claim over the subject vehicle, and therefore, they are required to be heard before passing any order of confiscation of the vehicle.
The learned Sessions Court has considered the provisions of Section 52(4) (b) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and held that the finance company of the vehicle is the necessary party to be heard before passing the order of confiscation, but no evidence have been collected with respect to hire- purchase of the vehicle and any loan against the said vehicle for its purchase. They have also considered that no notice was issued to the finance company before passing the order of confiscation of the subject vehicle. Therefore, remitting the matter back to the SDO (Forest), Dongargarh, for fresh consideration of the matter after providing a proper 11 opportunity of hearing to the finance company of the subject vehicle, cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or erroneous, which warrants interference of this Court by way of the present petition. No prejudice appears to be caused to the petitioner even if the matter is remitted to the SDO (Forest) for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the finance company of the subject vehicle. The petitioner has ample opportunity to contest his case there.
Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. sagrika Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Indian Forest Act, 1927 — ss. 52, 52(4)(b); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 386, 397, 399, 401, 401(1); Madhya Pradesh Act; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 2(30).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 25 Sep 2025. The bench was RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.