The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1657 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Prasanna Kumar Mohapatra ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha ……. Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. Laxmidhar Dash, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Satyabrata Panda, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date of Judgment: 05.05.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The petitioner, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., has filed the present CRLMC to explore the following relief: “(i) issue notice to the Opp. Parties and after perusal of causes shown, be further pleased to direct the Forest Range Officer, Jagatsinghpur to release the vehicle, TATA ACE, bearing Regn. No.OD-21F-4294 in favour of the petitioner in compliance with direction issued by learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Crl. the Revision No.06 of 2023, dt. 13.10.2023 and orders by the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur forthwith and further the Opp. Parties may be directed to compensate suitably to the petitioner.” 02. The petitioner is the owner of the TATA ACE vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-21F-4294, which has been seized by the Forester, Rahama Section in connection with 2(b) C.C. Case No.3 of 2021. The seizure had taken place on 01.12.2021. The petitioner moved an application under Section 457 of the Cr. P.C. for release of the vehicle. Vide order dated 06.06.2023, the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur turned down the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the confiscation proceeding has already been initiated by the competent authority. Hence, under Section 56(3) of the Forest Act, the vehicle cannot be released during pendency of confiscation proceeding. 03. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur, has filed Criminal Revision No.6 of 2023 in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur. The learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur by its detailed judgment dated 13.10.2023, allowed Page 2 of 8 the Criminal Revision and while reversing the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur, directed release of the vehicle in subject. The learned Sessions Judge, in it judgment has observed as under: “Here this case at hand relates to offences U/s 4,12 & 14 of OT & OFPT Rule 1980 but our Hon'ble Courts reiterated the said fact by applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vrs. State of Gujarat reported in (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444, in the case of Ashis Ranjan Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha and others (W.P (C) No.31622/2021, decided on 31.01.2022 and in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal Vrs. State of Odisha (supra) while deciding the Crl.Rev.No.52 of 2022 and the same has been filed under section 401 read with section 397 of Cr.P.C challenging the order dtd.15.1.2022 passed by the learned SDJM, Birmaharajpur in Crl.Misc.case (CMC) No.02 of 2022 arising out of 2(b) CC No.15/2021, where in the Hon'ble Court setting aside the order of learned SDJM, Birmaharajpur direction has been issued for releasing the seized vehicle in favour of the recorded owner subject to the conditions laid by the Division of our Hon'ble Court in the case of Ashis Ranjan Mohanty(supra) Paragraphs 16 (I) to (f). Therefore, there was no bar for the learned SDJM, Jagatsinghpur to entertain the petition U/s 451 of the Cr.P.C, then, at this juncture, the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 passed in Misc.Case No.53/2023 learned SDJM, U/s.451 of Jagatsinghpur cannot and shall not be justifiable under law. For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the said impugned order passed by the learned Court below through this revision filed by the petitioner. As such, there is merit in the revision of the petitioner, the same must succeed. The revision be and the same filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest. the Cr.P.C by the the Page 3 of 8 Engine No.OD-21 F-4294 and The impugned order dtd.06.06.2023 passed by the learned SDJM, in Cr.Misc.case Jagatsinghpur No.53/2023 (arising out of 2(b) CC No.03/2023 which corresponds to OR case No.16 JSP of 2021-22) for an interim release of the Tata ACE vehicle bearing No. registration 275ID107GSYS71394 chasis MAT445483HZG26282 is hereby set aside. The learned SDJM, Jagatsinghpur is directed for interim release of the aforesaid seized Tata ACE vehicle bearing registration No.OD-21 F-4294 in favour the petitioner Prasanna Kumar Mohapatra by imposing suitable conditions just fit and proper as per the guidelines laid down by our Hon'ble High Courts of Orissa, No.31622/2021 dtd.31.01.2022-Ashis Ranjan Mohanty(Adv)-vrs-State of Odisha and others. Accordingly the revision is disposed of.” in W.P(C) passed 04. The aforementioned judgment dated 13.10.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2023 has attained its finality. 05. Pursuant to the aforementioned judgment, although the petitioner has communicated the judgment to the Forest Range Officer, Jagatsinghpur, but the Forest Range Officer declined to release the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner has filed CRLMP No.2483 of 2023 before this court. 06. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated
Decision
15.03.2024 disposed of the CRLMP No.2483 of 2023 stating that, Page 4 of 8 there is no scope for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction in view of the confiscation order. 07. The petitioner has now approached this Court by filing the present petition virtually reiterating his prayer as has been made by him in CRLMP No.2483 of 2023. 08. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of hearing of the Criminal Revision No.6 of 2023, the confiscation proceeding vis-à-vis the vehicle in subject was pending. However, subsequently, the Authorised Officer-cum- Assistant Conservator of Forest, Cuttack passed the order confiscating the seized vehicle on 24.02.2024 against which the F.A.O. No.8 of 2024 has been filed which is pending in the Court of the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur. 09. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the F.A.O. pending against the order of confiscation dated 24.02.2024 being the continuation of the original proceeding, the Forest Range Officer, should have released the vehicle in subject as per the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur Page 5 of 8 dated 13.10.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.06 of 2023. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 18.08.2023 passed in CRLMC No.2301 of 2023 and CRLMC No.2639 of 2023 Paragraph-9 of the said judgment reads as under: “9. Taking all these factors into consideration as also the statutory bar referred to hereinbefore, this Court is of the considered view that the release of the vehicle if at all during pendency of the confiscation proceeding or the appeal can only be subject to the final outcome thereof and not absolute. In other words, the order for release of the vehicle shall have to abide by the final order passed in the confiscation proceeding or the appeal. Since there is no guarantee of the proceedings attaining finality within a short period of time, it would enure to the benefit of no one in keeping the vehicle idle and stationary allowing thereby its value to depreciate.” 10. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in its order dated 02.05.2024 passed in CRLMC No.1336 of 2024, State of Odisha & another vs. Sai Chanda Sahu. Relying upon the aforementioned judgment and on the basis of the fact scenario of the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no option left for the Forest Range Officer, rather to release the vehicle pursuant to the Judgement dated 13.10.2023 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur awaiting the final outcome of the FAO No.08 of 2024. Page 6 of 8 11. I have perused the record of the case and it is found that the similar prayer made by the petitioner has been turned down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 15.03.2024 passed in CRLMP No.2483 of 2023. F.A.O. No.8 of 2024 came to be filed only on 02.03.2024. Although the F.A.O. No.8 of 2024 against the order of confiscation had already been filed on 02.03.2024, but the same was not brought to the notice of this Court, therefore, the prayer of release of vehicle has been rejected. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner while answering to the pointed question of this court submitted that, in fact, he has not brought to the notice of this Court regarding pendency of the F.A.O. No.8 of 2024 against the confiscation order. That perhaps the reason the CRLMP has been turned down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 12. Be that as it may, the case of the petitioner is directly covered by the judgment of Kalandi Behera (supra) as well as the Judgment of this Court in Sai Chanda Sahu (supra). Therefore, Page 7 of 8 during pendency of the First Appeal against the confiscation order, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated 13.10.2023 should have been complied with and the vehicle in subject should have been released on the interim zima to the petitioner subject to the final outcome of the F.A.O. No.8 of 2024 filed against the confiscation order. 13. In view of the aforementioned, I am inclined to allow the present petition and direct the Forest Range Officer, Jagatsinghpur to release the vehicle in subject in favor of the petitioner in accordance with the judgment dated 13.10.2023 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur on interim zima on the conditions as deemed fit and proper. 14. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 5th May, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty S.S. Mishra (Judge) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 05-May-2025 20:14:56 Page 8 of 8