2025:UHC:4 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application (u/s 528) No.1016 of 2024 Sandeep Singh Negi --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Others -Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Prashant Khanna, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this C528 application, applicant has challenged the order dated 15.06.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Joshimath, District Chamoli as well as the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Criminal Revision No.16 of 2024, whereby, the criminal revision filed by the applicant was rejected and the order passed by the learned trial court for rejection of the releasing of the vehicle was affirmed. 3. The facts of the case are that a forest offence was reported by one-Sushila Devi, Forest Beat Officer of Nanda Devi National Park, Joshimath against the two persons- Madan Bahadur Shahi and Chandra Prakash Negi. Accordingly, H-2/Range No.002 dated 05.12.2023 was registered with the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Nanda Devi National Park, Joshimath. According to the contents of the FIR (H-2), on 04.12.2023 at about 03.30 PM, a vehicle taxi No.UK11TA2874 was intercepted and the 2025:UHC:4 2 musk teeth and dried flesh of musk deer was recovered from the aforesaid vehicle. The accused persons- Madan Bahadur Shahi and Chandra Prakash Negi was travelling in the vehicle and accordingly, they were arrested and the aforesaid vehicle was seized. 4. The applicant, who claims himself to be the owner of the aforesaid vehicle, moved an application for releasing the aforesaid vehicle on 25.01.2024, which was rejected by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Nanda Devi National Park, Joshimath on 16.02.2024 stating that till the criminal case is not disposed of or any order is passed in respect of seized vehicle by the Court, vehicle cannot be released by the department. 5. It was only thereafter, the applicant has moved a release application in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Joshimath, District Chamoli. The said application was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 15.06.2024 saying that in view of the provision contained in Section 52-D of the Indian Forest Act 1927 (Uttarakhand amendment) (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’), the jurisdiction of Magistrate has been excluded and the application can only be made before the Authorized Officer under Section 52-A or before the State Government under Section 52-B to release the seized vehicle. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed a Criminal Revision No.16 of 2024 Sandeep Singh Negi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and 2025:UHC:4 3 another, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli. Learned Sessions Judge after going through the provisions of the Act and after deliberating in detail about the provision of the law involved in the case, concurred with the opinion given by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Joshimath, Chamoli and rejected the Criminal Revision vide its judgment and order dated 13.08.2024 affirming the order dated 15.06.2024. The applicant is now before this Court challenging both the orders as stated above. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the release application can only be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, therefore, both the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as by the learned Sessions Judge are illegal and incorrect and the same should be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant placed a strong reliance on Section 52-D of the Act to buttress his argument. Section 52-D of the Act is quoted hereinbelow:- “52-D:-Bar of Jurisdiction in certain cases-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, whenever any forest produce belonging to the State Government together with any tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or other article is seized under sub-section (1) of Section 52, the authorised officer under Section 52-A or the State Government under Section 52-B shall have jurisdiction, to the exclusion of every other officer, court, Tribunal or authority, to make orders with regard to the custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property.” 9. From the bare reading of the aforesaid provision, there is no manner of doubt in the mind of this Court that there is no illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts. The Section 52-D of the 2025:UHC:4 4 Act starts with a non obstante clause and the power has been given to make orders with regard to the custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property, to the Authorized Officer under Section 52-A or the State Government under Section 52-B in the event of confiscation of any vehicle under sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Act. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders. 10. Accordingly, the C528 application is dismissed in-limine. Since, the applicant’s application dated 25.01.2024 was rejected by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Nanda Devi National Park, Joshimath on 16.02.2024, but, instead of preferring an appeal, a release application to the learned Judicial Magistrate was filed. The appeal should have been filed against the order as provided under Section 52-B of the Act. But, on wrong advice, the release application was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Joshimath, Chamoli, which was rightly dealt with by the learned Judicial Magistrate and by the learned Revisional Court. However, in this view of the matter, the applicant is relegated to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority as prescribed under Section 52-B of the Act within a period of 30 days from today. The Appellate Authority may consider the appeal of the applicant in accordance with law. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 02.01.2025 PN PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6a ab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229 D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.01.06 14:30:39 +05'30'