State of M.P. vs Aditya Narayan Shukla

R.C. Mishra, J.—With consent, matter is finally heard. This is a petition, u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30-9-2011 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Cri. Revision No. 139/11, setting aside the order passed on 6-7-2010 by the Empowered Officer, viz., Conservator of Forests, Khandwa, whereby the order dated 28-4-2008 passed by Licensing Officer, so far as it related to release of saw-mill machinery, seized for violation of sub-section (5)(c) of Section 6 and Section 9 of M.P. Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 (for short ''the Adhiniyam''), was annulled and the same was directed to be confiscated.

As indicated already, the impugned order was passed in a case, registered as Criminal Revision whereas a bare perusal thereof would reveal that it was treated to be criminal appeal. However, fact of the matter is that the order of confiscation was passed by the Empowered Officer, in exercise of suo motu power, conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Adhiniyam, and the same could be challenged by preferring an appeal (not a revision) under sub-section (4) thereof before the District Court (not the Court of Session), within local limits of whose jurisdiction the area wherein property has been seized is situated. Needless to say that the ''District Court'' means a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction [See: Clause (4) of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure].

Thus, the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 12 of the Adhiniyam are not in pari materia with sub-section (2) of Section 52A and sub-section (1) of Section 52B of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as applicable to the State of Madhya Pradesh. For a ready reference, these provisions may be reproduced as under:--

Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the respondent ought to have been entertained and decided as a Civil Appeal. Now, even if it is assumed that the expression "District Judge'' includes an Additional District Judge as well as an Additional Sessions Judge, it would not be legally permissible to interfere, under the inherent powers preserved by Section 482 of the Code, with the order, thus, deemed to have been passed by an Additional District Judge.

The petition, therefore, stands dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to file a writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for the same relief. Certified copy of the impugned order be returned to the A.G. Office after retaining its photocopy on record.

C.C. as per rules.