Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
JAKIR KHAN V/S STATE OF M.P. & ANOTHER, decided on Thursday, April 13, 2017.
[ In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor, Cr.R. No. 206 of 2012. ] 13/04/2017
Judge(s) : G.S. AHLUWALIA
Advocate(s) : Applicant H.K. Shukla. B.P.S. Chauhan, PP.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  Md. Morful Haque Versus The State of West Bengal ,   21/04/2017.  

  Asraf Biswas & Another Versus The State of West Bengal,   11/08/2016.  

  Jakir Khan & Others Versus Oma Ram & Another,   27/04/2016.  

  The Hazarat Thable Aalam Badusha Natharvali, Dargah & Others Versus F. Syed Ameenudeen & Others,   18/04/2016.  

  Bulu Myea @ Syed Mustafa Hossain & Another Versus The State of West Bengal ,   16/10/2015.  

  Biswajit Das & Another Versus The State of West Bengal,   25/06/2015.  

  Mehmood Ali Versus State of U.P.,   08/01/2015.  

  Liyakat & Another Versus State of Rajasthan,   26/09/2014.  

  State of Assam Versus Fasiullah Hussain @ Hamid Mahmood @ Khalid Mahmood & Others,   17/05/2013.  

  Food Corporation of India Versus J.S. Sirohi,   22/03/2013.  

  Shri Jagannath Mandal Versus Shri Sanjoy Ghosh Hatkhola,   18/03/2013.  

  Syed Yaseen Versus Smt. Reshma & Another,   07/12/2012.  

  Noor Sahana Versus State of Rajasthan & Others,   24/08/2012.  

  Banamali Pati Versus The State of West Bengal,   21/06/2011.  

  Jakir Hussain Versus Deen Mohammad & Another,   03/08/2010.  

  Mohammed Shakur Javed Ali Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra,   21/07/2010.  

  Jakir Hussain son of Noor Mohammed Versus State of Rajasthan,   01/02/2010.  

  Amrutbai Versus Jabbar,   14/07/2009.  

  Resham Bai Versus Jabbar,   14/07/2009.  

  Harez Ali & Another Versus State of Assam & Others,   16/03/2009.  

  Fayyum Versus State Of M.P.,   14/08/2007.  

  Life Insurance Corporation of India & Another Versus Memo Khatoon,   10/08/2006.  

  Lehri alias Lehar Khan Versus Jakir Hussain,   24/02/2006.  

  Mumtajali Versus State Of Assam,   12/12/2005.  

  Taki Ahmed Khalil Ahmed Khan & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra ,   16/09/2004.  

  United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Begumbai,   20/04/2004.  

  M. NAGABHUSHANAM VERSUS TWIN CITIES STEEL RE. ROLLING MILLS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD ,   06/02/2003.  

  Khatoonbi Versus Prithvipal Singh,   15/09/1998.  

  Khatoonbi & Others Versus Prithvipal Singh & Another,   15/01/1998.  

  Sayed Osman s/o Sayed Karim & others Versus The State of Maharashtra ,   04/09/1997.  

  State of Maharashtra Versus Abdul Jakir Abdul Dubar Singh & Others ,   08/10/1996.  

  Jakir Ibrahim Khan And Others Versus The State Of Maharashtra ,   07/08/1990.  

  JAKIR IBRAHIM KHAN VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ,   06/08/1990.  

  GULAM MOHIDEEN KHAN VERSUS ABDUL MAJID KHAN ,   10/04/1956.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2017 (2) MPWN 137"  ==   "2017 (3) MPLJ 368"  ==   ""  







    1. This Criminal Revision under Section 397 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dated 7.2.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge Morena in Cr.Revision No.223 of 2011 setting-aside the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by JMFC Morena in M.Cr.C No.369 of 2011 by which the Magistrate had allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 457 of Cr.P.C for release of the vehicle.2. Necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that a Tractor bearing Registration No.MP06/A-2808 was seized by the forest authorities in connection with an offence punishable under Section 27 29 39(1) (d) 550 551 and also under Section 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act 1927. The said vehicle was confiscated by the order dated 7.3.2011. Against the order of confiscation the applicant filed an appeal which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the prescribed officer to decide confiscation proceedings afresh. During pendency of the confiscation proceedings the applicant filed an application under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C for release of the vehicle on supurdginama. The said application was allowed and the vehicle was directed to be released on supurdginama in favour of the applicant.3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate the respondent filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Court Morena. The said revision has been allowed by order dated 7.2.2012 passed by Sessions Judge Morena in Cr.Revision No.223 of 2011. Hence this revision has been filed by the applicant.4. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao reported in 2008 Volume 1 JT 364 the Magistrate did not commit any mistake in releasing the vehicle on interim supurdgi and the revisional Court has wrongly set-aside the order of Magistrate.5. Per-contra it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that once an information has been given to the Magistrate with regard to the initiation of the confiscation proceedings then he looses all it's jurisdiction to release the vehicle on interim custody.6. This Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Shivdayal (Cr.Revision No. 24 of 2012) has held as under:It appears that the revisionary Court has relied upon the order passed by the single Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7937/2008 (Dilip v. State of M.P.) which was dependent upon the judgment of Apex Court in case of Madhukar Rao. However if case of Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P. and others reported in 2000 (1) MPLJ 289 decided by full Bench of this Court is considered then in Para 20 of that judgment it is held that if property is seized under Indian Forest Act then situation would be different. The entire case decided by the full Bench was relating to the provision of confiscation in Wild Life Protection Act. In Wild Life Protection Act there is no provision of any inquiry or confiscation proceeding and therefore such view was given by the full Bench of this Court which was duly confirmed by the Supreme Court. However in Forest Act various provisions of Sections 52 52-A 52- B and 52-C were enacted in which the proceeding of confiscation is provided. No Court including the Apex Court has declared such provision to be ultra virus and therefore according to those provisions when intimation is given to the concerned Magistrate that the property seized under the Indian Forest Act is under confiscation then Magistrate has no right to release the property either temporarily or finally. In various cases the Supreme Court has its firmed view that no Court can go against the provisions enacted in the Forest Act. Hence when provisions under Sections 52 52-A 52-B and 52- C of the Indian Forest Act have not been declared ultra virus then those cannot be defeated by any of the Court. Position of Madhukar Rao's case is different. It was not related to the Indian Forest Act and therefore by relying upon the judgment of that case if any single Bench of this Court has passed an order to release the vehicle or property seized by the Forest Officer under the Forest Act then such order is nothing but per curiam and that cannot be applied for.7. Considering the fact that there is specific provision under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act which provides for the confiscation proceedings and remedies against the said order. It is clear that once an intimation is given to the Magistrate with regard to the initiation of the proceedings or confiscation then he looses it's jurisdiction to release the vehicle on Supurdgi. In the present case also undisputedly confiscation proceedings had begun. In fact the confiscation order was passed and the matter was remanded back by the appellate court and therefore this court is of the view that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to release the Tractor on Supurdgi. The revisional court did not commit any mistake by setting-aside the order of Magistrate.8. At this stage it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that he may be granted liberty to file an application in the confiscation proceedings for release of the vehicle on Supurdginama.9. The prayer made by counsel for the applicant appears to be just and proper.10. Accordingly this application is dismissed with liberty to the applicant that if he so desires he may file an application for release of the vehicle in the confiscation proceedings. In case if such an application is filed the same shall be decided by the authority in accordance with law.11. This application is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.