Uttarakhand High Court
Sandeep Singh Negi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 2 January, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:4
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application (u/s 528) No.1016 of 2024
Sandeep Singh Negi --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others -Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Prashant Khanna, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Ms.
Sweta Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondents.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this C528 application,
applicant has challenged the order dated 15.06.2024
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Joshimath,
District Chamoli as well as the order dated
13.08.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Chamoli in Criminal Revision No.16 of 2024,
whereby, the criminal revision filed by the applicant
was rejected and the order passed by the learned
trial court for rejection of the releasing of the vehicle
was affirmed.
3. The facts of the case are that a forest
offence was reported by one-Sushila Devi, Forest
Beat Officer of Nanda Devi National Park, Joshimath
against the two persons- Madan Bahadur Shahi and
Chandra Prakash Negi. Accordingly, H-2/Range
No.002 dated 05.12.2023 was registered with the
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Nanda Devi National
Park, Joshimath. According to the contents of the
FIR (H-2), on 04.12.2023 at about 03.30 PM, a
vehicle taxi No.UK11TA2874 was intercepted and the
1
2025:UHC:4
musk teeth and dried flesh of musk deer was
recovered from the aforesaid vehicle. The accused
persons- Madan Bahadur Shahi and Chandra
Prakash Negi was travelling in the vehicle and
accordingly, they were arrested and the aforesaid
vehicle was seized.
4. The applicant, who claims himself to be the
owner of the aforesaid vehicle, moved an application
for releasing the aforesaid vehicle on 25.01.2024,
which was rejected by the Deputy Conservator of
Forest, Nanda Devi National Park, Joshimath on
16.02.2024 stating that till the criminal case is not
disposed of or any order is passed in respect of seized
vehicle by the Court, vehicle cannot be released by
the department.
5. It was only thereafter, the applicant has
moved a release application in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Joshimath, District Chamoli.
The said application was rejected by the learned
Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 15.06.2024
saying that in view of the provision contained in
Section 52-D of the Indian Forest Act 1927
(Uttarakhand amendment) (hereinafter to be referred
to as ‘the Act’), the jurisdiction of Magistrate has
been excluded and the application can only be made
before the Authorized Officer under Section 52-A or
before the State Government under Section 52-B to
release the seized vehicle.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the
applicant filed a Criminal Revision No.16 of 2024
Sandeep Singh Negi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
2
2025:UHC:4
another, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge,
Chamoli. Learned Sessions Judge after going through
the provisions of the Act and after deliberating in
detail about the provision of the law involved in the
case, concurred with the opinion given by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Joshimath, Chamoli and rejected
the Criminal Revision vide its judgment and order
dated 13.08.2024 affirming the order dated
15.06.2024. The applicant is now before this Court
challenging both the orders as stated above.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the release application can only be filed before
the learned Judicial Magistrate, therefore, both the
orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate as
well as by the learned Sessions Judge are illegal and
incorrect and the same should be quashed.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant placed a
strong reliance on Section 52-D of the Act to buttress
his argument. Section 52-D of the Act is quoted
hereinbelow:-
“52-D:-Bar of Jurisdiction in certain cases-Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being
in force, whenever any forest produce belonging to the State
Government together with any tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope,
chain or other article is seized under sub-section (1) of Section
52, the authorised officer under Section 52-A or the State
Government under Section 52-B shall have jurisdiction, to the
exclusion of every other officer, court, Tribunal or authority, to
make orders with regard to the custody, possession, delivery,
disposal or distribution of the property.”
9. From the bare reading of the aforesaid
provision, there is no manner of doubt in the mind of
this Court that there is no illegality in the orders
passed by both the Courts. The Section 52-D of the
3
2025:UHC:4
Act starts with a non obstante clause and the power
has been given to make orders with regard to the
custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution
of the property, to the Authorized Officer under
Section 52-A or the State Government under Section
52-B in the event of confiscation of any vehicle under
sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Act. Therefore,
this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned
orders.
10. Accordingly, the C528 application is
dismissed in-limine. Since, the applicant’s application
dated 25.01.2024 was rejected by the Deputy
Conservator of Forest, Nanda Devi National Park,
Joshimath on 16.02.2024, but, instead of preferring
an appeal, a release application to the learned
Judicial Magistrate was filed. The appeal should have
been filed against the order as provided under Section
52-B of the Act. But, on wrong advice, the release
application was filed before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Joshimath, Chamoli, which was rightly
dealt with by the learned Judicial Magistrate and by
the learned Revisional Court. However, in this view of
the matter, the applicant is relegated to file an appeal
before the Appellate Authority as prescribed under
Section 52-B of the Act within a period of 30 days
from today. The Appellate Authority may consider the
appeal of the applicant in accordance with law.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
02.01.2025
PN
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6a
ab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229
NEGI
D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.01.06 14:30:39 +05’30’
4