Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1164 (PAT)

Zubair Alam v. State Of Bihar

2000-09-26

D.N.PRASAD

body2000
Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the Order dated 3.4.2000 passed in Confiscation Revision No. 8 of 1998 by respondent No. 4, Secretary, Forest & Environment Department, Patna, whereby and where under the Order passed by the respondent No. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Palamau in Confiscation Appeal No. XI/22 of 1997-98 dated 1.4.1998 was set aside and the order passed by the respondent No. 2 Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwa in Confiscation Case No. 1/97 dated 16.9.1997 was confirmed, by which Truck bearing No. BRO/1085 was ordered to be confiscated. 2. The short facts giving rise to this application is that on the basis of the report of the Forest Guard and on the recommendation of Range Officer, Chainpur, a Forest Case under Secs. 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act was registered against the petitioner and others and the confiscation was initiated. There was an allegation that on 10.7.1997, one Ram Pravesh Singh, the driver of the truck in question was carrying Granite about 200 CRT of worth Rs. 2,000.00 under the valued challan from M/s. Pankaj Enterprises and the Forest Guard seized the truck along with Granite, minerals and tools. Notice was issued to file show cause. The petitioner being the registered owner came to know regarding seizure of his truck and he approached the respondent No. 2, the D.F.O. for release of the truck. The petitioner did not want to contest the case and as such, he accepted his guilt and expressed his desire to make compromise, but the respondent No. 2 ignoring the fact and legal position directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 by his order dated 16.9.1997 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau under Sec. 52A of the Indian Forest Act, which was allowed and the order passed by the respondent No. 2 (D.F.O.) was set aside. The petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 for release of the truck vide Annexure-3. Against the said order, the respondent No. 2 filed a revision before the respondent which was allowed and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau was set aside by order dated 3.4.2000, hence this application. 3. The petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 for release of the truck vide Annexure-3. Against the said order, the respondent No. 2 filed a revision before the respondent which was allowed and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau was set aside by order dated 3.4.2000, hence this application. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 claiming therein that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and there is no illegality in the impugned order. It is further alleged that the Criminal case under Sec. 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act was already registered and the truck was seized as it was operating in a protected forest area as well as the petitioner accepted guilt and also prayed for compounding the case, on the basis of which the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 and the Revisional Court has rightly dismissed petition and affirmed the order of Divisional Forest Officer and as such, this petition has got no merit, which is fit to be dismissed. 4. Mr. G.K. Sinha, the earned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted at the very outset that the petitioner had filed the affidavit admitting the guilt bona fide on the assurance that the matter would be settled in the office of D.F.O. It is also submitted that the driver was holding Challan for carrying the said article but the D.F.O. has wrongly and with mala fide intention seized truck in question which is used for commercial purpose and kept lying in the open space. It is also submitted that the value of the minerals located on the truck was worth Rs 1.000.00 whereas the value of the truck in question cannot be less than Rs. 1,50,000.00 and as such. the imposition of fine of Rs. 50,000.00 by the respondent No. 2 is quite illegal and arbitrary. It is also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau also held that there was no connivance on the part of the truck owner in committing the offence and as such me impugned order passed in Revision is illegal and without basis, which is fit to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. It is also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau also held that there was no connivance on the part of the truck owner in committing the offence and as such me impugned order passed in Revision is illegal and without basis, which is fit to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Anwar, the learned Government Pleader No. I submitted that there is no illegality in impugned order as the petitioner confessed his guilt by filing affidavit and the order passed by imposing the fine of Rs. 50,000 is correct. 6. Before appreciating the submission made by the earned Counsel from both that sides, it would be appropriate to deal with about the legal provisions as laid down under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 . Sec. 52(1) of the Indian Forest Act reads as follows: When there is reason to believe that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of any forest-produce, such produce, together with all tools, boats, carts or cattle used in committing any such offence, may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. 7. Obviously, the truck in question was seized by the Authorised Officer-cum-D.F.O. and the said truck was seized loaded with Granite and estimated cost of Rs. 1,000.00 only. It is also clear from the record itself that the petitioner had filed an affidavit before the D.F.O. admitting about the loading of the said Granite but the Authorised Officer-cum-D.F.O. passed the order of releasing the truck with a condition that the petitioner is to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 as compensation. 8. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed the affidavit on the understanding that the matter be compromised and the petitioner was not ready to proceed with the case but even then, the D.F.O./Authorised Officer passed the order for release of the truck on condition for payment of Rs. 50,000.00 which is quite arbitrary and without any basis as well as it is beyond his jurisdiction and there is no such provision under Sec. 53 of the Indian Forest Act to impose compensation in such a manner. 9. It is true that there is a provision in the Indian Forest Act being Section 68 for compounding the offence, which reads as follows: SectiOn-68 Power to compound offences- (1).... 9. It is true that there is a provision in the Indian Forest Act being Section 68 for compounding the offence, which reads as follows: SectiOn-68 Power to compound offences- (1).... (2) On the payment of such sum of money, or such value, or both, as the case may be, to such officer, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged, the property, if any, seized shall be released, and ho further proceedings shall be taken against the person or property. 10. There is no mention for imposing of compensation in exercising the power of release of property seized under Sec. 52 of the Indian Forest Act, which has been enunciated under Sec. 53, which is as follows: Any Forest Officer of rank not inferior in that of a danger who, or whose subordinate has seized any tools, boats, carts or cattle under Sec. 52, may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof of a bond for the production of the property so released, if and when so required, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. 11. Thus, order passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-D.F.O. releasing the truck on condition of payment of Rs. 50,000.00 as compensation appears to be illegal and arbitrary, which cannot be sustained. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Palamau passed the order in appeal in releasing the truck with direction to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 . It is true that there is no provision for imposing fine in releasing the truck, but if the person whose article has been seized is ready to compound the case as laid down under Sec. 68 of the Indian Penal Code, there is a provision for giving direction for payment of money. The truck in question said to have been seized as back as in the year 1997 and since then, if is lying in the open space and the truck in question said to have been used for the commercial purpose. The truck in question said to have been seized as back as in the year 1997 and since then, if is lying in the open space and the truck in question said to have been used for the commercial purpose. The Revisional authority also committed error in holding that the appellate Court has passed an order of confirmation of reversion or order of the authorised officer and he can only modify the order about confiscation but the Appellate Court has got the power to modify the order of the Authorised Officer and the Appellate Court has rightly passed the order in appeal by modifying the same and released the truck by directing to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 to the petitioner and admittedly the value of the Granite said to have been loaded was worth Rs. 1,000.00 . The filing of the affidavit by the petitioner before the Authorised Officer also indicates about bona fide intention on the part of the petitioner to compound the proceedings. 12. Considering the whole facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Revisional Court committed error in passing the order dated 3.4.2000, which is fit to be quashed. The Authorised Officer-cum-D.F.O., Garhwa also committed error in passing the order dated 16.9.1997 by imposing condition. Thus, I find merit in this application, which is accordingly allowed. 13. Thus, the order dated 3.4.2000 passed in Revision Case No. 8/1993 and order dated 16.9.1997 passed in Confiscation Case No. 1/97 are, hereby, quashed. The Order dated 1.4.1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is, hereby, confirmed and the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 to the authority concerned to be deposited in the Government Treasury and if such deposit is made, the truck bearing registration No. BRO/1085 be released in favour of the petitioner/registered owner, with condition that he shall produce the same before the authority, if and when so required.