[2026:RJ-JP:16031] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9203/2022 Firm Shri Laxmi K Nickles And Minerals, Proprietor Pushpa Devi W/o Chauthmal Saini, R/o Bagora, Tehsil Udaipurwati, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Regional Forest Officer, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AGA Mr. Dharamveer Meel, Ranger-I HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 16/04/2026 1. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Revision Petition No.66/2022, whereby revision petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The revision petition was preferred against the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by Appellate Authority-cum-Chief Forest Conservator, Jaipur, who dismissed the appeal preferred by petitioner against order dated 09.07.2021 passed by Authorized Authority-cum-Assistant Forest Conservator, Jhunjhunu, whereby the Authorized Authority-cum-Assistant Forest Conservator [2026:RJ-JP:16031] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-9203/2022] confiscated Pickup bearing registration No.RJ-18-GB-4698, used in transporting illegal debris from the forest area as a result of which the said vehicle was confiscated u/s 30, 32, 41 & 42 of Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and for violating the provisions contained under Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, an FIR No. 388/31/2021 was registered on 14.06.2021. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is registered owner of the Pickup bearing registration No. RJ-18-GB-4698. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted an application was filed for release of the Pickup, in question, on ’Supurdginama’ but instead of passing an order on interim custody of vehicle Authorized Authority-cum-Assistant Forest Conservator, Jhunjhunu, passed an order dated 09.07.2021 with regard to to an application submitted before it and the same was dismissed on the above mentioned date. This order was affirmed by Appellate Authority-Cum-Chief Forest Conservator without mentioning award about the prayer of interim custody of the said vehicle. The Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in criminal revision petition No.66/2022 also did not consider the matter in crux and passed the impugned order affirming the order passed by Appellate Authority-cum-Chief Forest Conservator, Jaipur, dated 13.05.2022. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and have perused the material available on record. 3. Under provisions of Section 53 Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 the seized vehicle can be released on execution by the owner thereof a bond for production of the same when and where [2026:RJ-JP:16031] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-9203/2022] directed to produce it, whereas provisions relating to proceedings of the confiscation have been enshrined in Section 52-A to C of the Act of 1953. Section 55 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 reads as follows:- “55. Forest Produce, tools etc. when liable to confiscation:-(1) All timber or forest produce which is not the property of State Government and in respect of which a forest offence has been committed, and all machinery, arms, tools, boats, cattle, vehicle, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing any forest offence, shall, subject to the provisions of Section52, 52A, 52B and 52C be liable to confiscation upon conviction of the offender for such forest offence.] (2) Such confiscation may be in addition to any other punishment prescribed for such offence.” 4. On conjoint reading of all the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Forest Act, it is clear that the vehicle used for transportation of forest produce without valid permit can be very much seized by the concerned Forest Officer and the same can be confiscated as well but confiscation can be ordered only after conviction of the offender for such forest offence subject to the procedure laid down under Section52A-C. The provisions of Section 52 (C) of the Rajasthan forest Act, 1953 reads as follows: “52-(C) Bar to jurisdiction of Court, etc. under certain circumstances.- (1) On receipt of intimation under subsection (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, the Appellate Authority and the Court of Sessions referred to in sections 52, 52A and52B), shall have jurisdiction to make [2026:RJ-JP:16031] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-9203/2022] orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal, or distribution of the property in regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated under Section 52, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force. Explanation.- Where under any law for the time being in force, two or more courts have jurisdiction to try forest, then receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52by one of the Courts of Magistrates having such jurisdiction shall be construed to the 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.” 5. This Court is of the opinion that Section 55 of the Act, 1953 creates an obligation upon the respondents to begin the confiscation only upon the conviction of the offender of such forest offences. The legislative intention under Section 55 of the Act, 1953 is apparent the special law of confiscation shall apply only when the persons have been convicted under the forest offences. The language of the Provision 52 (C) is also very clear in the same terms and same ousts the jurisdiction of the court upon initiating for confiscation of the property by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offences on account of such seizure of property which is subject matter of confiscation has been made. 6. The precedent law laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Harun Vs. State of Rajasthan D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.76/2014 also stated that bar to [2026:RJ-JP:16031] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-9203/2022] jurisdiction operates only when the Magistrate receives intimation under sub Section 4 of Section 52 about the initiation of the proceedings for confiscation. Observation in para 21 of the judgment makes it clear that the bar to jurisdiction shall operate upon a Magistrate only when the confiscation proceedings have been initiated. On the conjoint reading of the precedent law as well as the Act of 1953 it is clear that Section 55 imposes the condition of initiating confiscation upon the conviction of the offender for the forest offences and until such conviction happens bar to the jurisdiction to release the vehicle concerned shall not operate in light of the aforementioned discussions. 7. Therefore, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan-I is quashed and set aside and it is ordered that the possession of pickup bearing Registration No.RJ-18-GB-4698, in F.I.R. No. 388/31 dt. 14.06.2021 registered at Police Station Regional Forest Officer, Udaipurwati District Jhunjhunu, should be handed over to the registered owner of the alleged vehicle on ‘Supurdgi’ on his furnishing ‘Supurdginama’ for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with one surety for the same amount and an undertaking to produce the vehicle, in question before the concerned court as and when it required. The registered owner shall keep the condition of the vehicle intact and shall not transfer, mortgage on alienate the vehicle or damage it and change its shape in any manner. The registered owner shall also furnish photographs of the vehicle showing its numbers, colour etc. It is made clear that in future, if [2026:RJ-JP:16031] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-9203/2022] the vehicle is found to have been used in similar offence, the same would be liable to be seized. 8. Stay application also stands disposed of. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J GAURAV SHARMA /50