Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Venkatrao Raghunathrao Chavan

Bombay HC13 Apr 2012WP/1142/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal writ petition against an order releasing seized sandalwood. The court held Section 61 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 does not apply as trees were on private land. Under the Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964, the Tree Officer had power to forfeit property. The complainant was directed to return the wood.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The complainant is directed to return the muddemal to the concerned Tree Officer to seek release under the Trees Act.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Venkatrao Raghunathrao Chavan — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 CriWP 1142/10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1142 OF 2010

¶5

The State of Maharashtra

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

V E R S U S

¶8

Venkatrao s/o Raghunathrao Chavan, Age 55 years,
Occ. Agriculture, Resident of Pangaon, Taluka
Renapur, District Latur

¶9

Respondent

¶10

 Shri G.R. Ingole, APP for the petitioner
Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent

¶11

CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE, J.
DATE : 13th April, 2012

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶13

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by
consent of both the learned counsel, heard finally.

¶14

2.The revision is filed against the order dated
2nd August, 2010, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Latur, in Criminal Revision No. 125 of
2009. The learned Judge allowed the revision and directed
release of sandalwood seized in Crime NO. 43 of 2009,
registered at Police Station Renapur, District Latur, for
offences punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C., under
Sections 41, 42, 26 (f) and 33-A of the Indian Forest
Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred as ‘Forest Act’, and
under Section 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Felling of Trees
(Regulation) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred as ‘Trees

¶15

2 CriWP 1142/10

¶16

Act’) in favour of the complainant/respondent.

¶17

3.The facts leading to the litigation, in short,
can be stated as under:-

¶18

On 14th April, 2009, the complainant/respondent
went to Renapur Police Station and lodged his complaint
saying that during the previous night, five sandalwood
trees standing in his own agricultural land were cut and
stolen by unknown persons. The offence was registered
and the police started investigation. During the
investigation, on 20th April, 2009, police arrested as
many as three accused, and on the same day, they
recovered from the accused the stolen sandalwood trees.
The police recorded seizure-panchnama. Subsequently, one
more accused was arrested in the case and the charge-
sheet was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Renapur, District Latur.

¶19

4. The complainant/respondent then moved his application under Sec. 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking return of the seized sandalwood trees on Supurdnama to him. The learned Magistrate rejected his application. But, in the revision filed by the complainant/respondent, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the provisions of Section 61 of the Forest Act would not apply to the facts situation of this case, because the sandalwood trees were not from a forest area. The learned Judge, however, did

¶20

3 CriWP 1142/10

¶21

not take into account the provisions of Trees Act.

¶22

5.On perusal of the provisions of the Forest Act,
I found that though the trees after they were cut would
be called ‘timber’, and the provisions of Section 2 (4)
(a) of the Forest Act makes a timber, a forest-produce,
but the other provisions of the Forest Act do not make
felling of private trees or trees on private land an
offence. In view of this, provisions of Section 61 of
the Forest Act will not be attracted to the seizure of
the muddemal in this case. Neither Section 52 of the
Forest Act would apply to the seizure of the muddemal in
this case. I am doubtful as to whether the accused in
this case have committed any offence punishable under the
provisions of the Forest Act.

¶23

6. However, on perusal of the provisions of Trees
Act, I realized that the accused, prima facie, committed
offence punishable under Section 4 of the Trees
Act(beside the offence of theft). Section 4 also
empowers the Tree Officer to forfeit the muddemal in this
case. However, the respondent, who is the complainant
and who is the victim of the offence punishable under
Section 4 of the Trees Act, would have ample opportunity
to go before the Tree Officer and get a suitable
order for release of the seized property. He thereby
would try and prevent the Tree Officer from forfeiting
the muddemal to the Government. In view of Section 4 of

¶24

4 CriWP 1142/10

¶25

the Trees Act, the learned Magistrate was not empowered to release the property on Supurdnama in favour of the respondent / complainant. Only because of this, the impugned order should be set aside.

¶26

7. At this stage, I am told that pursuant to the impugned order, the respondent/complainant has already taken away the muddemal on Supurdnama . I think this in violation of S.4 of Trees Act. It can not be permitted. I am constrained to direct him to return the muddemal to the concerned Tree Officer and then alone he is entitled to take further steps for release of the property. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in above terms.

¶27

 ( A.V.NIRGUDE, J. )

¶28

SRM/13/4/12

¶29

 ****

The State of Maharashtra v. Venkatrao Raghunathrao Chavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Venkatrao Raghunathrao Chavan

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

Balu Gopinath Tandale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Bhagwat @ Bhaskar Borhade Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Gulab Pandurang Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tasneem Fatema Shaikh Abdul Karim and Anr. Vs Siddiqui Abdul Faheem Abdul Aleem

Swapnil Sanjay Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sangram Hanmantappa Chakure Vs Mahadevi Shankarappa Belure and Anr.