The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that once confiscation proceedings are initiated under the Indian Forest Act and formal intimation is sent to the Magistrate, the Magistrate loses all jurisdiction to grant interim custody of seized property, regardless of the owner’s non-involvement in the offence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Niles Bharatkar, is the registered owner of a pickup vehicle bearing registration No. MH40-CM-3729, which was seized by forest officials on 26.12.2025. The vehicle was found parked in a forest area in Katangi Range, District Balaghat, loaded with 12 teak logs. During night patrolling, forest staff observed the vehicle and apprehended one individual present at the scene, who disclosed that the teak logs had been illegally felled and were being transported for sale outside the State. The vehicle and logs were seized, and Forest Criminal Case No. 11899/2024 was registered under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and Section 5(1)(c) of the Forest Exploitation (Trade Regulation) Act, 1969. Confiscation proceedings were initiated, and formal intimation was sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katangi, on 27.12.2025.
Key Facts
- The vehicle was seized on 26.12.2025 during forest patrolling
- The seized property included 12 teak logs, valued as timber under the Forest Act
- One individual was apprehended; the petitioner was not named as an accused
- The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle but not a suspect or accused in the case
- Confiscation proceedings were formally initiated on 27.12.2025
- Intimation of confiscation proceedings was sent to the JMFC, Katangi, on 27.12.2025
- The petitioner filed an application before the JMFC seeking interim custody of the vehicle on supurdaginama
Procedural History
- 26.12.2025: Vehicle and teak logs seized by forest officials
- 27.12.2025: Confiscation proceedings initiated; intimation sent to JMFC, Katangi
- 05.01.2026: JMFC, Katangi, rejected the application for interim custody of the vehicle
- 24.02.2026: Revisional Court dismissed the revision against the JMFC’s order
- 23.03.2026: Petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, before the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought release of the vehicle on supurdaginama, arguing that as the registered owner and not an accused, he was entitled to interim custody pending conclusion of the case.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 52C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 bars a Magistrate from granting interim custody of seized property once confiscation proceedings have been initiated and intimation has been duly sent to the Magistrate, even if the owner is not an accused.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao (2008) 14 SCC 624 and Vrijendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C. No. 13123/2018) to argue that the owner’s innocent status entitles him to interim custody. It was contended that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the petitioner had no connection to the offence and that the vehicle was merely a means of transport. The counsel urged that the bar under Section 52C should not apply where the owner is not implicated.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s counsel contended that once confiscation proceedings are initiated under the Forest Act and intimation is sent to the Magistrate, Section 52C operates as an absolute bar on the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on Ahmedji v. State (AIR 1986 MP 1) and Asrar Khan v. State of M.P. [2001 (2) Law Bhaswar 85], which establish that the Magistrate’s jurisdiction is extinguished upon receipt of intimation, irrespective of the owner’s involvement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under Section 52C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which provides that once the competent authority initiates confiscation proceedings and gives intimation to the Magistrate, the Magistrate shall not entertain any application relating to the seized property. The Court emphasized that the provision is not contingent on the accused status of the property owner but operates as a procedural bar triggered solely by the initiation of confiscation and intimation.
"Once the Magistrate receives intimation regarding initiation of confiscation proceedings, the bar under Section 52C of the Indian Forest Act comes into operation, and the Magistrate is divested of jurisdiction to pass orders regarding interim custody of the seized property."
The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner. In Madhukar Rao, the issue concerned release of property before confiscation proceedings were initiated. In Vrijendra Singh, the Court had permitted interim custody because no intimation had been sent to the Magistrate. In the present case, intimation was sent on 27.12.2025, triggering the statutory bar. The Court held that the owner’s innocence, while relevant for eventual adjudication of ownership, does not override the procedural mandate of Section 52C.
The Court further noted that the legislative intent behind Section 52C is to prevent interference with confiscation proceedings by subordinate courts, ensuring that the authority vested in forest officials and the Collector is not undermined by interim orders.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the orders dated 05.01.2026 and 24.02.2026 rejecting interim custody of the vehicle. The Court confirmed that Section 52C of the Indian Forest Act bars Magistrates from granting interim custody once confiscation proceedings are initiated and intimation is received, regardless of the owner’s non-involvement. No relief was granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Confiscation Intimation Triggers Absolute Jurisdictional Bar
- Practitioners must verify whether intimation under Section 52C has been sent before filing any application for interim custody
- Applications filed after intimation will be dismissed summarily, irrespective of the owner’s innocence
- The bar applies even if the property owner is not named as an accused or charged
Owner’s Innocence Is Not a Ground for Exception
- The Court’s reasoning confirms that personal circumstances of the owner (e.g., non-involvement, good faith, lack of knowledge) cannot override the statutory bar
- Petitioners must seek remedies through the confiscation proceedings themselves, not through Magistrate’s interim orders
- Legal strategy must shift from seeking release to challenging the validity of confiscation proceedings under Section 52A or Section 52B
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Forest authorities must ensure timely and documented intimation to the Magistrate to invoke Section 52C
- Magistrates must refuse to entertain any application once intimation is received, even if the application appears meritorious
- Courts will not entertain arguments that the bar is "unfair" or "harsh" - it is a legislative mandate
