B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the orders dated January 24, 1991 and November 10, 1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sojat, by which the learned Magistrate ordered for the auction of the coal seized from the petitioner.
(2.) ON August 17, 1990, police party of Police Station Siriyari, headed by Jaffar Ali, seized the coal carried by a truck No. RJV 2751 at Kormal Chau-rah. The truck was driven by Devi Singh. After the seizure of the truck and the coal, a case under Section 42/77 of the Forest Act was registered against the petitioner and the police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against the accused-petitioner in the matter. The petitioner, on Sept. 10, 1990, moved an application for delivery of the coal to him. It was allleged in the application that the challan in this case has already been filed and the seized coal are lying in the open place, which will be damaged and the applicant will suffer unnecessary financial loss. It was, also, mentioned that the applicant purchased the wood of English, BABOOL, in an open auction from the Gram Panchayat, Jojawar, and prepared the coal after burning those trees and he was taking those coal after preparation to a safer place and in the way, the police party of Police Station, Siriyari, seized the coal. The application, filed by the applicant, was decided by the learned Magistrate by his order dated March 13, 1990. The learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the applicant and refused to give the custody of the coal to the applicant because according to the learned Magistrate, the applicant has contravened the provisions of the Forest Act and the coal in question is liable to be confiscated, as the same were carried without any valid transit permit. After rejection of the application regarding custody of the coal to Unas Ali, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor moved an application that the wood in question may be auctioned by a public auction and the sale proceeds may be deposited in the Government Treasury. That application came up for consideration before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sojat, on November 10, 1990. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not raise any objection regarding the disposal of the wood by open auction. Though actually the coal were seized but in the application due to inadvertance, instead of coal, the word 'wood' was mentioned and, therefore, in the order it was directed that the wood in question may be auctioned and, therefore, the application was moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for correction in the order and the learned Magistrate, by his order dated January 24, 1991, ordered for the correction in the order and directed that in place of 'wood' mentioned in the order dated November 10, 1990, the word 'coal' may be read and the auction of the coal may be made, as directed in that order. It is against this order that the present miscellaneous petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the orders passed by the learned trial Court. The order dated November 10, 1990 was passed with the consent of the petitioner. It is specifically mentioned in the order dated November 10, 1990, that the counsel for the accused has no objection if the seized goods may be auctioned. When the petitioner himself consented for the open auction of the seized goods, now he cannot raise the objection that the goods may not be auctioned and take the plea that he consented only for the auction of the wood and not for the coal. When the wood was not seized even and if due to inadvertance and a mistake crept in the order that instead of coal the word 'wood' was mentioned, then the petitioner cannot be allowed to take the benefit of this mistake, which crept into due to inadvertance. Even otherwise, according to the petitioner himself, by keeping the coal in the open place, the quality of the coal will be adversely affected and even there are chances of the coal being damaged. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the learned lower Court has not committed any illegality in ordering for the auction of the coal by public auction. The learned District Forest Officer may auction the coal in question in a public auction after giving a notice to the petitioner, also, and the sale proceeds of the coal may be deposited in the Government Treasury and the trial Court will be entitled to pass an appropriate order regarding delivery of the sale proceeds to the person found entitled for it at the time of final disposal of the case. In the result, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, has got no force and is hereby dismissed. .;