LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus DHANWANT SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,, STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH A v. DHANWANT SINGH FEBRUARY 12, 2004 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAY AT, JJ.] B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Constitution of India, 1950-Sections 482 and 401/Article 227-Exercise of powers under Section .482 and Article 227-Scope of-Order of confiscation of vehicle-Appeal under Section 59(2)- C Disposed of holding that Authorised Officer has no jurisdiction to pass order since it was not claimed that property belongs to State-Revision-High Court holding that as finality attached to the order passed in appeal, revision not maintainable and also as order of trial court not wrong there was no scope to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227-0n appeal, held: As finality attached to the order passed in appeal, Section 482 cannot D be invoked but it is not an impedime/1/ to deal with revision under Article 227 and cannot take away the constitutional right-Furthermore, High Court should examine question of presumption regarding ownership of proper~y by State, available under Section 69-Hence, order of High Court with regard to non- exercise of powers under Article 227 set aside-Forest Act, 1927 (as amended E by Himachal Pradesh Second Amendment)-Sections 59(2) and 69. Police intercepted a truck and the person who claimed to be the owner of the articles therein could not produce the necessary export permit. The articles were seized and later on the Forest Officer passed an order of confiscation of the truck. Respondent filed an appeal under F Section 59(2) of the Forest Act, 1927 (as amended). Appeal was disposed of holding that since offence was committed in respect of property, which according to the Appellate Judge was not claimed to be State's property despite th\. statutory presumption that forest produce being the properties of State, Authorized Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order. Appellant-State filed revision under Sections 397, 401 read with 482 Cr. G P.C. High Court accepting the submission that the Amendment Act attached finality to the order passed in appeal under Section 59(2) of the Act held that revision was not maintainable. It further held that as the order of Additional Sessions Judge was not wrong in any manner, there is no scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 H 297 298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R. A of Constitution. Hence the-present appeals. Appellant contended that the High Court without even indicating as to why it did not consider this to be a fit case by exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 .of the Constitution, in a summary manner held that the order of the trial Court did not suffer from any B illegality or irregularity; that the trial Court proceeded on erroneous basis as if there was no dispute or claim made that the property belonged to the State; and that the presumption regarding the ownership of the property by the State available under Section 69 of the Forest Act was completely overlooked. c Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: I. In the light of the specific stipulation in Section 59(3) of the Forest Act, 1927 (as amended), not only mere finality has been accorded to the order passed under Section 59(2) but the Iegis.lative D mandate also further stated that "shall not be questioned in any Court of Law", it may not be permissible to invoke Section 482 of the Code, the same cannot be an impediment to deal with the revision as one under Article 227 of the Constitution. 130l·E-FI 1.2. In so far as the statutes providing for finality of the .order' or E decision passed or rendered in accordance with the provisions of the statutes are concerned, it may be stated that it is well settled that such a statutory provision cannot take away the constitutional right given by Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 1301-GI Lila Vati v. State of Bombay, AIR (1957) SC 521 and Union of India F v. A. v. Narasimhalu, 1196912sec658, referred to. 1.3. The question which was required to be adjudicated was whether the presumption under Section 69 of the Act was to be pressed into service. The very action of the Department is on the hypothesis of the property belonging to the Government, in view of the statutory presumptions and G there is no need for making any separate claim or claims petition separately. This certainly is not a frivolous question. High Court was required to consider the issue in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.