The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1017 of 2025 Md. Imran ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Krishna Kumar Lal Opp. Party Represented By Adv. – C.M. Singh, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 27.11.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2.
Legal Reasoning
judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Ashish Ranjan Mohanty v. State of Odisha reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 520, prayed for interim release of the vehicle under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. It was argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner that after its seizure the vehicle has been kept idle and exposed to the sun and rain without there being any proper maintenance of the vehicle. As such, it was submitted that in due course the vehicle would lose its value and may become worthless. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the vehicle be released interimly in favour of the Petitioner under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. 9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the release of the vehicle on the ground that the application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C is not maintainable. He further contended that in view of the bar contained under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (the Act), which provides that once a confiscation proceeding has been initiated, the seized vehicle cannot be released even at the instance of its owner. Referring to the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the State contended that admittedly a confiscation proceeding has already been initiated. Therefore, the learned courts below have not Page 3 of 6. committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner in his application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C for interim release of the vehicle. Thus, it was argued that the application being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, this Court observes that the issue that falls for determination is as to whether the criminal courts have power to release a vehicle which is involved in a forest offence and the same has been seized in exercise of the power under Section 56 of the Act? It is pertinent to mention that the abovenoted issue which begs consideration in the present application is no more res integra. Such question has been adjudicated on several occasions and the same has attained finality in the meantime. However, at the cost of the repetition, this Court would like to refer to the judgment of this Court in Sarat Kumar Malu v. State of Orissa reported in 1984 CriLJ (984) and Kuril Tiria v. State of Orissa reported in 2007 CriLJ (3008). In the abovenoted two judgments, this Court has clearly laid down the law to the effect that in a case where the vehicle has been seized by the Forest Officers, the criminal courts have no jurisdiction to release such vehicle in exercise of the power under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. Similarly, a reference can also be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Udaya Singh, reported in AIR 2019 SC 1597. In the aforesaid reported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it has been categorically held that it is the exclusive authority of the Page 4 of 6. Authorized Officer once the Authorized Officer has initiated the confiscation proceeding under Section 56(2-a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. Moreover, the provision contained under Section 56 of the Act clearly ousts the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. 11. On a close scrutiny of the impugned orders passed by the learned trial court, this Court observes that an intimation has been sent to the learned trial court by the Authorized Officer that a confiscation proceeding in respect of the seized vehicle has already been initiated. Thus, in view of the bar contained under Section 56 of the Act, the criminal courts could not have entertained their jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C to release the vehicle in favour of the present Petitioner. Otherwise also, on a critical analysis of the orders passed by the learned JMFC, Rajgangpur as well as the learned Revisional Court, this Court observes that the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected by passing a reasoned and a detailed order and that the same does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. Accordingly, this Court restraints itself from interfering with the impugned orders. 12. However, while dismissing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C and thereby confirming the orders passed by the learned courts below, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to appear before the Authorized Officer and participate in the confiscation proceeding. Considering the urgency involved, this Court further directs that upon communication of a copy of this order the Authorized Officer shall do well to consider and dispose of the confiscation proceeding as expeditiously as Page 5 of 6. possible, preferably within three months from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. 13. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLMC
Arguments
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash the order dated 10.12.2024 in Criminal Revision No.45/15 of 2023-24 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh thereby dismissing the revision preferred by the present Petitioner and confirming the order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the learned JMFC, Rajgangpur in Criminal Misc. Case No.55 of 2023 arising out of 2(b)CC Case No.01 of 2020 which corresponds to Rajgangpur Forest Section OR No.160 of 2020-21. Page 1 of 6. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle which was seized in connection with a forest offence bearing the Regd. No.OD-14-P-9739. Such vehicle was seized by the Forester, Rajgangpur while it was transporting Timber illegally. Consequently, a 2(b)CC Case No.01 of 2020 was registered alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Odisha Timber & Transit Control Rule. 5. As per the prosecution allegation, on 25.12.2020 at about 6 AM near Borepali toll gate the vehicle in question was found to be illegally transporting 5 quintals of Lodha bark. On inquiry, no document was produced for such illegal possession before the Forest Officer. Thereafter, the Forest Officer seized the vehicle and the accused persons were arrested from the spot. Two of the accused persons were released on bail on the very same day. 6. While this was the position, an application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C was moved before the learned Magistrate at the instance of the accused-petitioner with a prayer for release of the seized vehicle. A report was called for from the Forest Range Officer, Rajgangpur Forest Section. Accordingly, an intimation was received that a confiscation proceeding has already been initiated by the Authorized Officer from DFO, Rourkela Division. Taking into consideration the aforesaid report, the learned JMFC, Rajgangpur rejected the prayer for the Petitioner for release of his vehicle under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. 7. Being aggrieved by order dated 18.11.2023 of the learned JMFC, Rajgangpur, the accused-petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh which Page 2 of 6. was registered as Criminal Revision No.45/15 of 2023-24. The learned Revisional Court by judgment dated 10.12.2024 dismissed the revision petition. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned JMFC, Rajgangpur was affirmed. 8. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, referring to the judgment Arun Kumar Agarwal vs. State of Odisha reported in 2022 (Suppl.) OLR 336 and the
Decision
application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Nov-2025 18:58:38