HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who claims to be owner of truck No. WB -15 -0229, has filed this application under Sections 397 and 401, Cr PC for release of truck seized in connection with Mandu/ Kujju P.S. Case No. 158 of 2002. In course of hearing of the instant application, an order was passed on 25.6.2002, pursuant to which petitioner, through supplementary affidavit, has amended the petition and has challenged the seizure also. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 25.6.2002 is quoted herein below : "Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file supplementary affidavit for amending the prayer portion of the criminal revision application in order to challenge the seizure of the truck in question as well. The prayer is allowed. This criminal revision application is for release of the truck bearing registration No. WB 15 -0229 which was seized in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 158 of 2002, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. It appears that confiscation proceeding has already been initiated by the Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Hazaribagh (opposite part No. 2) vide Confiscation Case No. 23 of 2002 and as such the petitioner is directed to take steps for filing a petition before the Confiscating Authority for release of the truck in question. If such a petition is filed by the petitioner within a week from today, the Confiscating Authority shall dispose of the confiscation case aforementioned within 15 days thereafter."
(2.) A counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party has also been filed. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the aforesaid order dated 25.6.2002, submitted that pursuant to the order dated 25.6.2002 the petitioner filed a representation before the competent authority who was pleased to reject the representation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three points. His first point of argument is that no notice, as contemplated under Section 52 etc. of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 has been given to the petitioner in confiscation case No. 23/2002 and confiscation case has been disposed of without giving opportunity to the petitioner and, therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice and in such a case where there is violation of principles of natural justice, the High Court should pass orders in favour of the petitioner and release the vehicle in question. The second point of argument was that the Honble Court vide order dated 25.6.2002 had directed the competent officer to release the vehicle but instead of doing so has passed an order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner and thereby has violated the direction of the Honble Court passed in Criminal Revision No. 230/2002. The third point of argument was that petitioner had no knowledge of the commission of offence and vehicle in question has been seized from the premises of the petitioners house and, therefore, these points were placed before the competent authority but still then the prayer was rejected.
(3.) ON the other hand, it was stated on behalf of the learned counsel for the State that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice as learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared before the competent authority cum Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh and has placed his case before the authority and he referred two dates on which learned counsel for the petitioner appeared before the competent authority after going through the orders passed in Confiscation Proceeding No. 23/2002. It was further stated that since confiscation proceeding was initiated and information was sent to the learned CJM and thereafter, when the petitioner filed the revision, an order was passed and then petitioner filed a representation before the competent authority, who after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner on several dates, passed confiscation order. Hence there is no violation of the principle of natural justice. The learned counsel further referred to the order dated 25.6.2002 passed in the revision application and pointed out that there was no such order to release the vehicle but there was an order to dispose of the representation within fifteen days from the date of filing of the representation and the competent authority after giving opportunity of hearing and after full hearing passed an order in confiscation proceeding and as such, there is no violation of the order dated 25.6.2002. It was further pointed out that the petitioner has got remedy of appeal as well as revision and he has not exhausted all the remedies and, therefore, this revision application is not maintainable, Learned counsel further pointed out that the High Court has got no jurisdiction when an order confiscating the articles or tools used in the commission of forest offences is passed and as such, the petitioner has got no remedy here and he should move before the appellate Court, which is the Court of District Magistrate or should go in revision against the confiscation order before the Forest Secretary.;