Petitioner challenged dismissal of revision against rejection of application to return seized TATA Tempo under 451 CrPC, barred by jurisdictional limitations of Magistrate under Forest Act.
High Court rejected the writ petition and discharged the rule due to lack of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 WP87.2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 87 OF 2015
Musa S/o. Gaffar Shaikh, Age : 40 years, Occ : Business, R/o. Bazar Tal Parisar, Gangapur, Tal. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner
Versus
Mr Mobin H. Shaikh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr U. S. Mote, APP for respondent/State Mr A. N. Gaddime, Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : MARCH 25TH , 2015.
ORAL JUDGMENT: -
. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.
2 WP87.2015
and validity of the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, on 7th January, 2015, whereby the challenge to the order dated 3rd November, 2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangapur, below Exh. 18 in RCC No. 408 of 2014, was dismissed.
3 WP87.2015
4 WP87.2015
reported in 2002 STPL(LE) 31719 SC , would not be applicable to the present case. The learned Sessions Court has rightly observed that, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the said matter in respect of return of the property. The learned Sessions Court has assigned sound and justifiable reasons for rejecting the revision application in view of the bar of jurisdiction to the Magistrate for returning the property. In view of this, the writ petition being sans merit, stands rejected. Rule is discharged.
( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. )
sgp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioners application under Section 451 CrPC for return of seized vehicle can be entertained despite Section 59 of the Indian Forest Act barring such jurisdiction in magistrates court.
Whether the High Court should grant a Writ Petition challenging the dismissal of a revision petition regarding the return of seized forest-related vehicle.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of GujaratDistinguished¶19
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gujarat reported in 2002 STPL(LE) 31719 SC
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Musa S/o. Gaffar Shaikh
The State of Maharashtra
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
