Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure to release a truck seized in connection with a forest offence when the Orissa Forest Act contains special provisions for seizure, interim custody, confiscation, appeal, and disposal of the property.
Analysis: The provisions dealing with seizure and disposal of property under the Code are general provisions governing interim custody, post-trial disposal, and certain cases where the seized property is not produced before the court. The Orissa Forest Act, however, contains a detailed and self-contained scheme covering seizure of forest produce and vehicles used in forest offences, interim release, confiscation by the authorised officer, revision, appeal to the District Judge, disposal after trial, procedure where the offender is unknown, and disposal of perishable property. In the absence of any express provision preserving the criminal court's jurisdiction, the special statutory scheme was treated as excluding the general powers under the Code to the extent of the matters specifically provided for by the Forest Act.
Conclusion: The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to release the seized truck under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the order rejecting release was upheld.