The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 04. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2413 of 2025 Kanhu Charan Patra ..... Appellant Represented By Adv. - Lambodor Achari -versus- 1) A.o, Ghumsur South Division, Bhanjanagar 2) Range Officer In-charge, Badagada Forest Range ..... Respondents Represented By Adv. – Mr.U.R.Jena, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 06.08.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
Legal Reasoning
court, would not change the position of law and therefore is not applicable to the proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 10.03.2025 has been passed on the basis of misinformation Page 5 of 6. provided by the I.O. to the learned trial court. Moreover, in view of the provisions contained in Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act no such order should have been passed by the trial court. As such this Court holds that the order dated 10.03.2025 is un-workable/un-executable. Accordingly, the order dated 10.03.2025 is hereby set aside. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the confiscation proceeding is pending before the Authorised Officer, liberty is given to the Petitioner to approach the Authorised Officer by filing an appropriate application. In such eventuality, the Authorised Officer shall consider such application by providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 10. Since this Court holds that the order dated 10.03.2025 is un-executable, necessary consequential order be passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Sorada. 11. With the aforesaid observation the CRLMC stands
Arguments
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 at Annexure-3 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Sorada in M.C.No.03 of 2025 thereby denying interim release of the seized vehicle bearing Registration No. OD- 07-V-4110 in favour of the Petitioner. The present application has been filed at the instance of the Petitioner thereby invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 10.03.2025 at Annexure-3 and to direct the Opposite Parties for interim release of the seized vehicle in favour of the Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset Page 1 of 6. contended that the vehicle in question was seized in connection with a forest offence under section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act., a P.R. was registered on 16.02.2024. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on the basis of the aforesaid P.R. a 2(b) C.C.Case No.03 of 2025 was registered and the same is pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Sorada. In the aforesaid pending 2(b) C.C. case the Petitioner moved an application under section 497 of BNSS 2023 which was registered as M.C.No.03 of 2025 with a prayer for interim release of his vehicle referred to hereinabove and which was seized in connection with 2(b)CC Case No.03 of 2025. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that although the application under section 497 BNSS was accepted and the same was heard and the document with regard to ownership of the vehicle was produced for perusal of the learned trial court, however, learned trial court vide order dated 10.03.2025 after considering the judgment of this Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. State of Odisha directed release of the vehicle on interim basis subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that despite the order dated 10.03.2025 directing interim release of the vehicle, the vehicle has not been released in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Authorised Officer, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. 5. learned Additional Government Advocate on the other Page 2 of 6. hand contended that the application filed by the Petitioner under section 497 of BNSS, 2023 is completely misconceived. He further contended that the vehicle of the Petitioner was seized under section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972. He further contended that after seizure of the vehicle and forest produce a 2(b)(C.C.Case was registered and the same has been pending before the learned J.M.F.C.,Sorada, however in the meantime a confiscation proceeding bearing U.D.Case No.30 of 2025 has been initiated by the Authorised Officer under the Odisha Forest Act. He further submitted that the vehicle was seized by the Forest authorities under section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act and that in the meantime the confiscation proceeding is going on. 6. In the aforesaid context, learned Additional Government Advocate drawing the attention of this Court to sub-section 3 of Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act contended that the property seized under section 56 of the Act shall be kept in the custody of the Forest Officer or with any third party, until the compensation for compounding the offence is paid or until an order of the Magistrate directing its disposal is received. Emphasis was laid to the proviso attached to sub-section 3 of Section 56 of the Act such proviso was inserted by virtue of the Gazette Notification No.660 dated 05.05.2023, which reads as follows: “Provided that the seized property shall not be released during pendency of the confiscation proceeding or trial even on the application of the owner of the property for such release.” Page 3 of 6. 7. In view of the provision appended to sub-section-3 of section 56 of Odisha Forest Act, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the vehicle could not have been released in favour of the Petitioner. Moreover, learned Additional Government Advocate although contended that since the seized vehicle was within the custody of the Authorised Officer and confiscation proceeding is going on, the Petitioner should have approached the Authorised Officer in the aforesaid confiscation proceeding and in the event the Petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by the Authorised Officer, he should be approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition instead of 482 Cr.P.C. application. On such ground, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the application is misconceived and the order passed by the learned trial court on 10.03.2025 at Annexure-3 is un- executable. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on careful analysis of the factual background of the present case as well as the subsequent development, this Court observes that the vehicle in question was initially seized by the Forest Officers in connection with forest case. Accordingly, on the basis of the P.R. submitted, a 2(b) CC case was registered. It appears that the vehicle which was seized has been kept in the custody of Forest Officer and that a confiscation proceeding has already commenced as per the instruction received. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the proviso attached to sub-Section Page 4 of 6. 3 of Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act has full application. 9. So far the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 is concerned, on a careful scrutiny, it appears that the application filed by the Petitioner for interim release of the vehicle was considered by the learned trial court. The order clearly reveals that the I.O. did not intimate the court about the pendency of the confiscation proceeding and the number of such case. On further perusal of the order dated 10.03.2025, it appears that the learned J.M.F.C., Sorada has proceeded on the basis of the fact that no confiscation proceeding has been initiated as the I.O. has failed to provide any material with regard to initiation of any confiscation proceeding or any number thereof. Moreover, learned trial court referring to the judgment of this Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal’s case (supra) proceeded to decide the application and accordingly directed release of the vehicle assuming that no confiscation proceeding has been initiated. Thus, this Court found no fault with the order dated 10.03.2025. Further, taking into consideration the fact that a confiscation proceeding has in fact been registered as U.D.Case No.30 of 2025 and pending before the Authorised Officer and the pendency of such confiscation proceeding having not been brought to the notice of the learned trial
Decision
disposed of. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Aug-2025 18:03:46