Jaidayal and another vs State of Madhya Pradesh

S.K. Chawla, J.—By this revision the applicants challenge the appellate order passed u/ S. 454, Cr.P.C. for disposal of property.

The applicants were alleged to have illegally purchased on 17-6-1982 sal seeds weighing 78 quintals, 10 Kgs. in 94 bags and also transporting

them without permit in village Sargarh, P.S. Jaitpur, District Shahdol. After trial, the applicants were acquitted of the offence under S. 27(g) of the

Forest Act, 1927. The learned Magistrate directed the return of Sal Seeds to the applicants. The Forest Department took appeal against order

about disposal of property to Sessions Judge, Shahdol. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge directed confiscation of Sal Seeds in favour of the

State Government. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision has been filed.

A perusal of the appellate order of the learned Sessions Judge will show that it was based on the premise that Sal Seeds are ""specified forest

produce"" by virtue of notification issued under the provisions of M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969. Holding that the provisions

of the said Adhiniyam were applicable, the learned Sessions Judge hold that purchase of Sal Seeds by the applicants or even transportation thereof

without permit was illegal. Accordingly, he directed confiscation of the seized Sal Seeds.

It will be seen that the provisions of M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 are applicable only with respect to such ""forest

produce"" which are notified as ""specified forest produce"" by notification under sub-sec. (3) of S. 1 of the said Adhiniyam. Sal Seeds are no doubt

forest produce"" within the meaning of cl. (d) of S. 2 of the said Adhiniyam but no notification u/sub-sec. (3) of S. 1 of the said Adhiniyam was

shown mentioning Sal Seeds as specified forest produce for Shahdol district, in which the village in question fell, on the material date. It was

conceded by learned Govt. Advocate that there was no such notification issued even till this date. As such, it must be held that Sal Seeds were not

specified forest produce"" within the meaning of the said Adhiniyam. The provisions of the said Adhiniyam were, therefore, not attracted. The

appellate order of the learned Sessions Judge was based on the wrong premise about the applicability of the provisions of the said Adhiniyam. The

order of the learned Sessions Judge is, therefore, unsustainable. There was evidence in the case to show that the seized Sal Seeds had been grown

by applicant No. 2 Murlidhar on his field. As such the order for return of the seized seeds passed by the learned Magistrate was correct.

The revision is allowed. The order of Sessions Judge, Shahdol dt. 5-7-1984 directing confiscation of Sal Seeds is set aside and that of the

Magistrate directing return of the Sal Seeds to the applicants is restored.

Petition allowed.