Disposed

The State of Maharashtra v. Ahmedbhai Moiyoddin Zakaria Manzil and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2005WP/667/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the State challenged an order setting aside seizure of Sandal Wood Oil. The Court held that since goods were already released, no useful purpose would be served. It deferred the substantive issue of whether Sandal Wood Oil is Forest produce to a proper case while clarifying that pending criminal proceedings against respondents remain unaffected.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of on meritless grounds; criminal proceedings against first respondent to continue unaffected.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ahmedbhai Moiyoddin Zakaria… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.667 OF 2003

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra Applicant

¶5

 versus

¶6

 Ahmedbhai Moiyodin Zakaria
 Manzil and others Respondents

¶7

 Shri K.V.Saste, APP for applicant.

¶8

 Shri S.G.Deshmukh for respondents.

¶9

 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶10

 DATE : 2nd December 2005

¶11

 PC :

¶12

 1. The petition is directed against the order of
 the Additional Sessions Court in Criminal
 Petition No.150/1999 dated 23rd May 2002 wherein
 the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set
 aside the orders passed by Authorities exercising
 powers under Indian Forest Act, 1927 including
 the order of revisional authority dated 22nd May
 1998. The goods of the respondents herein namely
 4 drums of 25 Kilo Litres each of the Sandal Wood

¶13

 Oil seized and confiscated by the present
 petitioner, were directed to be returned to them.

¶14

 ((-2-))

¶15

 2. I have heard Shri Saste in support of the
 petition and Shri Deshmukh for the
 respondents-original appellants. With their
 assistance I have perused the necessary
 materials.

¶16

 3. In my view, considering the fact that the
 entire seizure has been set aside way back in the
 year 2002 and the goods have been released in
 favour of the respondents, no useful purpose will
 be served by deciding the controversy raised in
 the petition. It is urged that the basis on
 which the Sessions Judge proceeded was totally
 erroneous. It needs to be decided whether Sandal
 Wood Oil is forest produce or not. The
 contention raised is that Sandal Wood Oil being
 forest produce and no permission obtained from
 the Forest Department for it’s transportation.
 Its transportation without a forest transit pass
 as well as storing it without prior sanction of
 the concerned Forest Division violates Section

¶17

 2(4)(a) of the Forest Act, 1927 and Section 41(1)
 and (2) of the said Enactment R/W Rule 103 of the
 Bombay Forest Rules, 1942. In my view, this
 issue can be gone into in an appropriate case.
 All contentions of the petitioner in that behalf
 are expressly kept open for being agitated in a

¶18

 ((-3-))

¶19

 proper case.

¶20

 4. However, at the same time it is clarified
 that as far as offence registered against the
 first respondent bearing No.M-26/97-98 and the
 proceedings in that behalf, they shall go on
 uninfluenced by the observations and findings of
 the learned Additional Sessions Judge as also
 disposal of this writ petition. The said case be
 decided on its own merits and in accordance with
 law. The present petition is disposed of.

¶21

 (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

The State of Maharashtra v. Ahmedbhai Moiyoddin Zakaria Manzil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Ahmedbhai Moiyoddin Zakaria Manzil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Shrinivas Vaidya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Indersingh S/O.Jawahar Singh Vs Meena W/O.Jagdish and Anr.

M/S A.B.I. Express Pvt.Ltd Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pandurang Sadashiv Jangam Vs Kalgonda Bhimgonda Patil and Ors.

Sunil Shivappa Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vitara Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. Vs M/S. Ramsons Enterprises and Anr.