The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 03. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.135 of 2025 Mirza Ansar Alli Beg …. Petitioner Mr. L. Dash, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha, represented through the Range Officer, Dalijoda Forest Range, Jajpur …. Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 10.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order at Annexure-1 passed in connection with CMC No.62 of 2024 by learned J.M.F.C.(Cog. Taking-I), Cuttack, whereby, an application Section 457 Cr.P.C. pressed into service by him seeking release and interim custody of the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-04J-0339 in his favour was declined on the grounds stated therein. 3. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned court below was not justified in not directing immediate release of the seized vehicle in favour of the Page 1 of 5 petitioner exercising powers under Section 457 Cr.P.C. in view of the decision of this Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal Vrs. State of Odisha in Criminal Revision No.52 of 2022 decided and disposed of on 20th May, 2022. The further submission is that irrespective of any such confiscation proceeding initiated and pending, such release of the alleged vehicle should have been considered considering the decision of this Court in State of Odisha and another Vrs Kalandi Behera in CRLMC No.2301 of 2023 disposed of along with CRLMC No.2639 of 2023 by a common judgment dated 18th August, 2023 and therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-1 is liable to be interfered with followed by consequential directions issued in that regard. 4. On the contrary, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State justifies the decision of learned court below at Annexure-1with the submission that the vehicle in question is liable to confiscation in terms of Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The further submission is that the seized vehicle could not have been released in the interim custody of the petitioner in view of the initiation of the confiscation proceeding before the Authority concerned and therefore, the learned court below did not err in rejecting the application filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. and hence, the impugned order dated 27th November, 2024 at Annexure-1 is perfectly justified and in accordance with law and therefore, not to be disturbed. Page 2 of 5 5. In course of hearing, Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Prasanna Kumar Mohapatra Vrs. State of Odisha in CRLMC No.1657 of 2024 and an order in CRLMC No.1336 of 2024 dated 2nd May, 2024 to reiterate release of the seizure vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The contention is that the seized vehicle is lying in the custody of the opposite party since the date of seizure in connection with UD Case No.49-D of 2023-24. It is contended that the seized vehicle was to be released even though a confiscation proceeding stands initiated in OR Case No.96 of 2023-24 before the concerned authority and as earlier stated, the same is claimed to be permissible in view of the decision in Arun Kumar Agrawal (supra). No doubt, the alleged vehicle is liable to confiscation as per Section 56 of the Act. It is contended by Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State that such release is impermissible for the bar contained in sub-section (3) proviso of Section 56 of the Act. It is claimed by Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner that by the time the application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was moved, no confiscation proceeding had commenced. Rather the claim is that the proceeding for confiscation was initiated much after the seizure of the vehicle and filling of the application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. 6. In Kalandi Behera (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench this Court considering the provision, such as, Section 56 of the Act held and concluded that any such vehicle even subjected to Page 3 of 5 confiscation proceeding should be allowed to be released without detention. Such is the view of the Court referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vrs. State of Gujarat (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444. In the said decision, it has been held and concluded that undoubtedly the proviso of Section 56 (3) of the Act places a bar against release of the vehicle during pendency of the confiscation proceeding as it was introduced in the year 2003 but having regard to the decision in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai (supra), release of it should be allowed even if the confiscation is pending or an appeal is carried against any such proceeding. In such view of the matter and as there has been a decision (supra) by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, to maintain judicial discipline and propriety and even though, it is assumed that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated and pending disposal, the Court is of the conclusion that the seizure vehicle which is lying exposed to sun and rain should be directed to be released in favour of the petitioner however subject to suitable conditions imposed by the learned court below. 7. 8. Accordingly, it is ordered. In the result, the revision stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order at Annexure-1 in CMC No.62 of 2024 arising out of UD Case No.49-D of 2023-24 by learned J.M.F.C.(Cog. Taking-I), Cuttack is hereby set aside with a direction to immediate release of the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-04J-0339 in favour of the Page 4 of 5 petitioner subject to verification regarding its ownership and by imposing conditions necessary and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 15-Jul-2025 11:08:51 Page 5 of 5