Power of Collector u/s 72 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Fri, May 28, 2021, at ,10:14 AM Title of the Case – Power of Collector u/s 72 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 Name of the case – Mustafa vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh., C.A. No. 6438 of 2019 (@ SLP (c) No. 11110 of 2018) Supreme CourtDate of Judgment – 20th August, 2019Judges: Justice L. Negeswara Rao and Justice Hemant GuptaSubject and sections involved – Section 60 & 72 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862Issue: Whether Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to confiscate the vehicles and Fact of the Case: An FIR was logged against Mustafa u/s 60 & 72 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862 in respect of seizure of 154 cartons of illicit liquor, country made pistol by a team of Excise Department.Mustafa filed objections before the District Magistrate in response to the show cause notice served on him wherein he sought release of the Vehicle as it is sole means of his livelihood and that he will suffer financial loss.In pursuance of such show cause notice, the District Magistrate passed an order of confiscation and auction of both vehicles, owned by Nisar Ahmed and the Appellant, and the sale proceeds be deposited in Government treasury. However, the appellant was given an option in terms of Section 72 of the Indian Forest Act to pay Rs.4,50,000/- as market value of the truck. Nisar was given an option to pay Rs.1,20,000/- to seek release of the car.Ratio of the case - The division bench of Supreme Court while upholding the order passed by High Court directed it to exercise power of judicial review over the order of confiscation passed by the collector.The reliance was placed upon State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors v. Madhukar Rao., wherein the provision of the IPC and that of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 were examined. The court found that the use of a vehicle in the commission of an offence under the Act, without anything else would bar its interim release appears to be quite unreasonable. The Court held that the provisions of Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the amendments made thereunder do not in any way affect the Magistrate’s power to make an order of interim release of the vehicle under Section 451 of the IPC. It was further held in context to the issue that the Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to confiscate the vehicles and in case the seized things are subject to speedy wear and tear or natural decay, he may order to sell the same in the manner prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the Act. Sub- section (4) deals with distribution of sale proceeds when the seized thing is sold which is subject to wear and tear and natural decay or when it is expedient in public interest to do so. Sub- section (8) of Section 72 of the Act deals with a situation where a prosecution of an offence is instituted in relation to which confiscation was ordered, the thing or animal shall be disposed of subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 72 of the Act in accordance with the order of the Court. The order of the Court in sub-section (8) of Section 72 of the Act is after conclusion of the prosecution which is different from the seized things which are subject to speedy wear and tear or natural decay as contemplated by sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the Act.