( 2025:JHHC:38402 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.724 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.724 of 2019 ------ State of Jharkhand through Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O.), Khunti Forest Division, Khunti, officiating at Khunti, P.O. & P.S.-Khunti & District-Khunti … Petitioner Versus Jaynandan Mahto, S/o Late Kriti Lal Mahto, Resident of village- Jilingsereng, P.O.-Jilingsereng, P.S.-Tamad & District-Ranchi. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III For the OP : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the sole opposite party, yet no one turns up on behalf of the sole opposite party in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.493 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi quashed the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi in Cr. Misc. Application No.3730 of 2018 ( 2025:JHHC:38402 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.724 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi refused to release the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.JH-01-CS-0733 in favor of the sole opposite party which vehicle was seized by the Range Forest Officer, Tamar Forest Range under section 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment, 1989) for violation of Section 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act on the ground that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated regarding the seized vehicle, as well as the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi in the said Complaint Case No.4233 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi has issued direction for release of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.JH-01-CS-0733 in favor of the sole opposite party in terms of the said impugned order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.493 of 2018. 4. 4. The learned Revisional Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Agrawal vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2014 (3) JBCJ 447 [HC], which relates to the confiscation proceeding in connection with MMDR Act, wherein the co-ordinate bench of this Court opined that even if confiscation proceeding would have been started still vehicle seized can be released by the court concerned and release of vehicle could not affect the confiscation proceeding as the confiscation proceeding and release of the vehicle are two different proceedings and quite independent to each other and in the facts of that case, considering that the sole opposite party is the owner of the seized vehicle, ordered for release of the said vehicle. ( 2025:JHHC:38402 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.724 of 2019 5. Learned GA-III relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Uday Singh and other allied cases reported in (2020) 12 SCC 733 and submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to analyse the amendments brought by M.P. Act 25 of 1983 to the Forest Act, 1927 which is in pari materia to the amendment brought by the Bihar Amendment to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 wherein the specific provision have been made for the seizure and confiscation of forest produce and of tools, boats, vehicles and articles used in the commission of offences and Section 52-C stipulates that on the receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate under Section 52(4), no court, tribunal or authority, other than an authorized officer, an appellate authority or Court of Session (under sections 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which confiscation proceedings have been initiated and as Section 52-C (1) has a non obstante provision which operates, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or in any other law for the time being in force and the only saving is in respect of an officer duly empowered by the State Government, for directing the immediate release of a property seized under Section 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as provided in Section 61 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, hence, upon receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate of the initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 52(4)(a) of Indian Forest Act, 1927, the bar of jurisdiction under Section 52-C(1) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 is definitely ( 2025:JHHC:38402 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.724 of 2019 attracted. Therefore, the direction issued by the High Court in that case in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate to direct the interim release of the vehicle, which has been seized, being contrary to the law the Supreme Court of India set aside the said order of the High Court in that case. The learned Government Advocate further summits that in view of the categorical pronouncement of the law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi committed a grave illegality by relying upon the judgment of Satyanarayan Agrawal vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) which relates to the confiscation proceeding in connection with MMDR Act or for that matter, the provision of forfeiture provided under Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals (prohibition of slaughter) Act, 2005 in the case of Nayeem Ansari wholly misconceived. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to refer to Section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act as introduced by the Bihar Amendment, 1989, which reads as under:- 52-C. Bar of jurisdiction of Court, etc. in certain circumstances. (1) On receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52 about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property which is subject-matter of confiscation, has been made, no Court, Tribunal or Authority (other than the authorised officer, Appellate Authority and Revision Authority referred to in sections 52, 52-A and 52- B) shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force. ( 2025:JHHC:38402 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.724 of 2019 Explanation-Where under any law for the time being in force, two or more Courts have jurisdiction to try forest-offence, then on receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52 by one of the Courts of Magistrates having such jurisdiction shall be construed to be receipt of intimation under that provision by all the Courts and the bar to exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such Courts. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the power saved under section 61. (Emphasis supplied) the plain reading of Section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act makes it abundantly clear, that the same bars the jurisdiction of any Court, Tribunal or Authority other than the Authorized Officer or the Appellate or Revisional Authority of such officer, the jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which confiscation proceedings are initiated under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or any other law for the time being in force. So, in view of this categorical bar of jurisdiction, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has misdirected itself by relying upon the judgements of this court in cases relating to confiscation under the provisions of MMDR Act or forfeiture under the Jharkhand Bovine Animals (prohibition of slaughter) Act, 2005; as those acts, do not have any pari materia provision to Section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act,1927. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.493 of 2018 as well as the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi in the said Complaint Case No.4233 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi has issued direction for release of the offending vehicle bearing ( 2025:JHHC:38402 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No.724 of 2019 Registration No.JH-01-CS-0733 in favour of the sole opposite party of this Cr.M.P. is not sustainable in law and the same is quashed and set aside. 7. The order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi in Cr. Misc. Application No.3730 of 2018 is restored. 8. In the result, this Cr.M.P., is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 9. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide order dated 24.01.2020, is vacated. 10. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forth with. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th of December, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 03/01/2026