# Mahendra Prasad Ram Revisionist v. State Of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 578 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-27 - **Bench:** Prabhat Chandra Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahendra-prasad-ram-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44144 - **Pages:** 6 ## Text 578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES all questions urged in order to render complete justice between the parties. The Court should not refuse to exercise that discretion on mere technicalities." 20. The same view has again been reiterated in a later decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi, AIR 2000 SC 43. 21. We are of the considered view that the conditions as laid down in provisions of Order XLI Rule 33 are satisfied in the present case. In Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that when circumstances exist which necessitate the exercise of discretion conferred by Rule 33, the court cannot be found wanting when it comes to exercise its powers. 22. Thus the argument in this regard made by the learned counsel for the appellant has no legs to stand and is not liable to be sustained. 23. In view of above facts and discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled to be awarded a total sum of Rs.8,37,000/- along with 7% simple interest from the date of making of the application till the date of actual payment. 24. Accordingly, though the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company stands dismissed but the award stands modified to the extent directed above. 25. In the facts and circumstances, we do not make any order as to costs. ---------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. Criminal Revision No.- 2227 Of 2013 Mahendra Prasad Ram ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for Revisionist: Rakesh Prasad, B.K. Pandey, Sher Singh Counsel for Opposite Parties: Govt. Advocate Indian Forest Act, 1927 - S. 2(4) - Definition of 'Forest Produce' - Includes wild animal skins brought from a forest - Leopard/Panther skins constitute forest produce - S. 52 - Seizure of 7 All. Mahendra Prasad Ram Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 579 vehicle used for transportation of forest produce - Vehicle amenable to seizure along with forest produce - Under Section 2(4)(b)(iii) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the definition of 'forest produce' expressly includes wild animals, their skins, tusks, horns, bones and all other parts or produce of animals, when found in or brought from a forest. In the present case, two full-size skins of a Leopard or Panther were recovered from a vehicle (Tata Indigo) intercepted at Allahabad. The vehicle was used for transportation of such forest produce. Held: The seized leopard/panther skins constitute 'forest produce' within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the vehicle used for transporting the same is liable to seizure under Section 52 of the Act along with the forest produce. Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Ss. 52-A and 52-D (as amended by U.P. Act 1 of 2001) - Exclusive Jurisdiction of Authorised Officer - Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts, Tribunals and other Authorities - Once proceedings under S. 52-A initiated, Criminal Court ceases to have jurisdiction to pass orders regarding release of seized vehicle - Order of release passed by A.C.J.M. without jurisdiction - Rightly set aside in revision - Section 52-D of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended and applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 16.4.2001, provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, whenever any forest produce belonging to the State Government together with any vehicle is seized under Section 52(1), the Authorised Officer under Section 52-A or the State Government under Section 52-B shall have exclusive 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 such property. In the present case, the Authorised Officer/Divisional Director, Social Forestry Division, Allahabad had initiated proceedings under Section 52-A(1) and had issued multiple notices to the vehicle owner - dated 19.6.2013, 29.1.2014, 5.3.2014 and 1.9.2015 - affording him ample opportunity to appear and submit his explanation, which he failed to avail. Held: Once proceedings under Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 were initiated by the Authorised Officer, the criminal court (A.C.J.M.) ceased to have jurisdiction to pass an order for release of the seized vehicle. The release order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the A.C.J.M., Court No. 10, Allahabad was without jurisdiction and was rightly set aside by the revisional court. Relied upon: State of West Bengal v. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129. Indian Forest Act, 1927 - S. 52-D - Argument that case was not initially registered under Indian Forest Act - Not a ground to exclude application of S. 52-D - Authorised Officer having initiated proceedings under S. 52-A, bar of jurisdiction operates - Revision dismissed - The contention of the revisionist that the case was not initially registered under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and therefore its provisions do not apply, was not accepted. The relevant consideration for the operation of the bar of jurisdiction under Section 52-D is not the initial registration of the case but the initiation of proceedings by the Authorised Officer under Section 52-A of the Act. Since the Authorised Officer had duly initiated such proceedings and issued successive notices to the vehicle owner, the bar of jurisdiction under Section 52-D was attracted and the criminal court had no jurisdiction to entertain or allow the release application in respect of the seized vehicle. The impugned order dated 30.7.2013 of the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad setting aside the release order was found to suffer from no illegality or infirmity. Held: Criminal revision dismissed; no interference warranted. (Delivered by Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.) 1. The revisionist Mahendra Prasad Ram has made the following prayers:- ".....to allow this revision and may graciously be pleased to set aside the judgment/ order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the revisional court Special Judge (E.C. Act)/ Additional Session 580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 48 of 2013, State of U.P. vs. Mahendra Prasad Ram in Case Crime No. 175/2012 under Sections 9/49(1) A/ 49(II)51/52 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, under Sections 429/379/411/120B I.P.C., under Section 10/15 Animal Cruelty Act and under Section 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, Police Station- Attarsuiya, District- Allahabad. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to release the said Vehicle Tata Indigo No. U.P.64 R-1963 in favour of the registered owner Mahendra Prasad Ram in compliance of release order dated 9.1.2013 and 21.1.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Allahabad in Case Crime No. 175 of 2012, Police Station- Attarsuiya, District- Allahabad." 2. The matrix of the facts in narrow compass are as follows:- "On 14.12.2012 at about 12:10 p.m., Sub-Inspector Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, Out Post- Meerapur, Police Station- Attarsuiya, District- Allahabad along with his police team intercepted the car No. U.P.64 R-1963 (Tata Indigo) and recovered two full size skins of Leopard or Panther near Gol Park, Attarsuiya, District- Allahabad. On interrogation, it was found that the name of car driver was Mahboob S/o Saleem R/o Gurai, Chaska Tola, Police Station- Robersganj, Sonbhadra. Two other persons travelling on vehicle fled away. Car driver revealed his name and informed that they have come to sell the skin of Leopard or Panther from Sonbhadra. The case was registered under Sections 9/49(1) A/ 49(II) 51/52 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and under Section 429 I.P.C. Car driver/ accused person Mahboob was arrested. The skin of the Leopard was sealed separately and a separate report was sent to the Range Forest Officer, (City), Allahabad. Later on, applicant Mahendra Prasad Ram moved an application for release of the aforesaid vehicle Registration No. U.P.64 R-1963 in Case Crime No. 175 of 2012 under Section 429 I.P.C. and under Sections 9/49(1) A/ 49(II) 51/52 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The release application was allowed vide order dated 9.1.2013 by the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Court No.10, Allahabad." Aggrieved by this order dated 9.1.2013 (supra) of the learned A.C.J.M., Court No.10, Allahabad, State of U.P., the revisionist preferred criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad which was admitted on 28.1.2013 and operation of the impugned order dated 9.1.2013 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Court No.10, Allahabad in Case No. Nil of 2012 in Case Crime No.175 of 2012, by which release application of opposite party has been allowed by the court below, it was ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad "Operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed, if not already executed." 3. This criminal revision No.48 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs. Mahendra Prasad Ram) was finally decided by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad by it's order dated 30.7.2013 by which the criminal revision was allowed and impugned order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Court No.10, Allahabad in release application No. Nil of 2012 State of U.P. vs. Mahendra Prasad Ram was set-aside. 7 All. Mahendra Prasad Ram Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 581 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the following rulings:- "State of West Bengal vs. Sujit Kumar Rana LAWS (SC)-2004-1-110 State of M.P. vs. Madhukar Rao LAWS (SC)-2008-1-66 Ravi Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and another - Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2191 of 2007 (2007) RD-AH 3208 (26 February 2007)" 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that initially the case was not registered under Indian Forest Act, 1927, hence it's provisions do not apply. 6. In the counter affidavit of K.S. Yadav, Range Forest Officer, Allahabad, it is mentioned that under Section 52 (A) (1) of Indian Forest Act, 1927, the opposite party no.2 issued notice dated 19.6.2013 to vehicle owner Mahendra Prasad Ram calling upon him to submit his explanation within a period of one month but he refused to receive the notice. Thereafter, vide official letter dated 1951 T.C./22/10 dated 29.1.2014 a second notice was issued to vehicle owner in which it was stated specifically that the vehicle owner should appear on 12.2.2014 in the office of Prabhagiya Vaniki Sa. Va. Van Prabhag, Minto Park Allahabad at 11:00 A.M. and submit his defence/ explanation but in pursuance to aforesaid notice the aforesaid owner did not appear as indicated in the notice. 7. Similarly, notices dated 5.3.2014 and 1.9.2015 were issued to the vehicle owner to appear in the office of O.P. No.2 on dates 19.3.2015 and 15.9.2015 respectively to submit his explanation but the vehicle owner did not appear on the dates fixed. 8. Thus, it is evident that authorised officer/ Divisional Director Social Forestry Division, Allahabad, initiated proceedings under Section 52-A of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and has given ample opportunity to the vehicle owner which he did not avail. Section 52-D of Indian Forest Act, 1927 in verbatim is quoted as below:- "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. [Vide U.P. Act 1 of 2001, S.7 (w.e.f. 16-4-2001)]." 9. Section 2(4) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 in verbatim is quoted as below:- 582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES "2. Interpretation clause. - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- (4) "forest-produce" includes - (a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say:- timber, charcoal, caoutchouc, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds, kuth (Ins. by Act 26 of 1930, S.2) and myrabolams, and (b) the following when found in, or brought from a forest, that is to say:- (i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce not hereinbefore mentioned, of trees, (ii) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts or produce of such plants, (iii) wild animals and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax, and all other parts of produce of animals, and (iv) .................." 10. The meaning of the Authorised Officer as given under Section 2 Interpretation clause of Indian Forest Act, 1927 in State Amendments of Uttar Pradesh is as follows:- "Uttar Pradesh.- In its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, in Section 2, for clause (1) the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:- (1) "authorised officer" means an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 52-A" and in Section 52-A of Indian Forest Act, 1927, procedure of seizure has been described. 11. As discussed above, Authorised Officer/ Divisional Director Social Forestry Division, Allahabad in exercise of power vested under Section 52-A(1) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 has initiated the procedure of seizure. 12. Following judgment of Supreme Court is relevant in the present context:- "State of West Bengal and others vs. Sujit Kumar Rana (2004) 4 SCC 129 7 All. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Vidyawati Devi & Ors. 583 Criminal Appeal Nos. 453 and 454 to 459 of 1997 decided on 20.01.2004" 13. Hence, impugned judgment and order order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in Criminal Revision No. 48 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs. Mahendra Prasad Ram) suffers from no illegality or infirmity and therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage. 14. Resultantly, in view of the above analysis, this instant criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 15. The criminal revision is, accordingly, dismissed. ----------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J. THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. First Appeal From Order No.- 2389 Of 2016 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Smt. Vidyawati Devi & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for Appellant: Rajeev Ojha Counsel for Respondents: S.D.Ojha. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 33; U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 - Rule 220A (as amended w.e.f. 26.09.2011); Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 338, 427, 304-A. 1. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Motor Accident - Involvement of Offending Vehicle - Correction of Registration Number in Charge-Sheet - Effect of. Where the First Information Report was lodged against an unknown vehicle and the registration number of the offending vehicle mentioned in the charge-sheet was subsequently corrected by the Investigating Officer upon seeking permission from the competent court after detection of a clerical/typographical error, such correction does not cast doubt on the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. When the occurrence of the accident and the identity of the offending vehicle stand duly proved by the unshaken testimony of an eye-witness who had noted the registration number of the vehicle at the spot, a mere