Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 223 (CAL)

Ram Naresh Jadav v. State of West Bengal

2000-05-03

Bhaskar Bhattacharya

body2000
JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.: In this writ application, the owner of a truck has challenged an order dated May 10, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Midnapore in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 44 of 1998 thereby affirming an order of confiscation of the truck passed by the Divisional Forest Officer and the authorised officer in a proceeding under section 59A of the Indian Forest (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1988. 2. The respondents alleged that the truck in question was stopped at Lodharshuli check post by Range Officer when it was detected that the same was loaded with shal sawn timbers and the driver of the vehicle could not produce any document in respect of those forest produce. Those slippers did not bear any hammer impression. The said officer was of the view that there had been violation of W.B.F.P. Transit Rules 1959 and Indian Forest Act, 1988 and as such he seized the truck along with those timbers and brought those to Jhargram Range Officer for safe custody. The said Range Officer forwarded the case to the Divisional Forest Officer, Midnapore Division who after complying with all formalities and recording the statement of the owner passed an order of confiscation in terms of section 59(A)(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1988. 3. Being dissatisfied, the owner of the vehicle preferred an appeal but the appellate authority by the order impugned herein has dismissed the appeal thereby affirming the order of confiscation. 4. Being dissatisfied, the owner has come up with the instant writ application. 5. At the very outset it should be borne in mind that the scope of this application is very much limited. This court cannot scrutinize the order passed by the appellate authority as a regular court of appeal. Section 59(D)(2) of the Act (West Bengal Amendment) prohibits further appeal against the order passed by the appellate authority. Therefore unless the petitioner can establish any jurisdictional defect in the proceeding which is apparent on the face of record, this court cannot interfere. Insufficiency or inadequacy or wrong appreciation of evidence cannot be put forward as a ground for interference if the findings recorded by the authority below are possible view and such findings have been arrived at after following the correct principles of law. 6. Mr. Insufficiency or inadequacy or wrong appreciation of evidence cannot be put forward as a ground for interference if the findings recorded by the authority below are possible view and such findings have been arrived at after following the correct principles of law. 6. Mr. Roy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has firstly contended that there is no whisper in the seizure report that the seized forest produce belonged to the State Government and in the absence of such report, there cannot be any reference under section 59A of the Act. I am afraid such contention is not tenable. A conjoined reading of section 59A and section 59B of the leaves no doubt that before passing an order of confiscation the authorised officer must be satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect of the forest produce belonging to the State Government after giving an opportunity of hearing to the owner to prove that even if such offence is committed, the same was done without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or his agent, if any, or the person in charge thereof and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against such use. But those sections do not require formation of any such definite opinion in writing before giving show cause notice to the owner. I, thus, find no substance in the first contention of Mr. Roy. 7. Mr. Roy next contended that the principles as mentioned in section 69 of the Act cannot have any application to a proceeding under section 59A of the Act. In my view, the language employed in section 69 is so clear that there is no scope of any argument that in a proceeding under section 59A .the presumption in favour of Government should not be drawn. It is definitely for the owner to rebut the presumption. 8. Mr. Roy lastly drew attention of this court to the statements of the owner and tried to convince this court that the findings recorded by the authorities below are not in conformity with the evidence. Mr. Roy also placed before me the Division Bench decision of this court in Cr. R. No. 2105 of 1990 disposed of on March 17, 1992 and contended that the order impugned is in conflict with the principles laid down in the said case. 9. Mr. Roy also placed before me the Division Bench decision of this court in Cr. R. No. 2105 of 1990 disposed of on March 17, 1992 and contended that the order impugned is in conflict with the principles laid down in the said case. 9. The aforesaid decision was given in a Criminal Revision Case under sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the State Government against the order of the appellate authority setting aside order of confiscation by the authorised officer. In the said case, the Division Bench followed the principles laid down by an earlier Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 2289 of 1989 (State vs. Gurbachan Singh) and ultimately held as follows:- “In the facts and circumstances of the present case we do not find any noticeable distinction which will warrant us not to follow the earlier Division Bench pronouncement, (sic) as to whether the owner took all reasonable and necessary precautions against the illegal use of the vehicle. (sic). It is always a question of fact and in the present case we are ubable to hold against the owner of the vehicle in this regard. That being so the impugned order calls for no interference." 10. In this connection, Mr. De, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has placed reliance upon another Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Authorised Officer vs. Susanta Banerjee and Ors., reported in 1992 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (Cal) page 334 where the case of State vs. Gurbachan Singh was considered and the Division Bench ultimately held that the provisions of section 5gB clearly establishes that the owner apart from proving the user of the offending vehicle without his knowledge and connivance must also prove to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that his agent or person in charge of the vehicle had also no knowledge nor had connived in the user of the same in commission of the forest offence and further that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against such use. 11. The authorities below, it appears from the orders, have followed the principles laid down in the aforesaid Division Bench decision and have ultimately held against the owner. 11. The authorities below, it appears from the orders, have followed the principles laid down in the aforesaid Division Bench decision and have ultimately held against the owner. Such findings of fact having been arrived at on the basis of materials on record after correctly applying the principles laid down by the Division Bench, I do not find any reason to interfere with such a just order. 12. The writ application is thus bereft of any substance and is dismissed accordingly. 13. No costs. Writ application dismissed.