Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 149 (MP)

Ashok Kumar v. State of M. P.

2002-02-08

N.S.AZAD

body2002
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioners seek quashment of order dated 30-8-2000 passed by the Authorised Officer under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, which shall herein after be referred to as "act", wherein the petitioners Truck bearing registration No. M. P. G.-2234 is ordered to be confiscated. ( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to the confiscation may be summarised as follows:-In P. O. R. No. 10286/3, dated 31-5-1985, the aforesaid Truck belonging to Madanlal Asati, the predecessor-in-title, of the petitioners, was seized by Shri P. K. Ghondke, Range Officer, Lamta, at Asati Saw Mill, Lamta, for transporting 24 logs of beeja illegally. Then a complaint under Section 26 of the Act read with Section 5 of the M. P. Vano-Upaj Vyapar Viniyaman Adhiniyam, was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balaghat, against Madanlal Asati and five others, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 574/95. The proceeding under Section 52 (3) of the Indian Forest (M. P. Amendment) Act, 1983, were also initiated for confiscating the aforesaid Truck, by the Authorised Officer. On being noticed under Clause A of Sub-section (4) of Section 54 of the Act, Madanlal Asati appeared before the Authorised Officer and filed his reply. Then, after affording an opportunity of adducing the evidence, the Authorised Officer confiscated the aforesaid vehicle by order dated 26th August, 1985. ( 3. ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Madanlal Asati filed an appeal, registered as Appeal No. 59/85, which stood disposed of by the Conservator of Forest, Balaghat, on 20th November, 1985. Then these petitioners assailed the aforesaid order dated 20-11-1985, passed by Conservator of Forest, Balaghat, in Appeal No. 59/85 in Criminal Revision No. 67/85, which stood disposed of by IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Balaghat, on 31-12-1997. The learned IInd A. S. J. partly allowed the revision and remanded the case back to the Authorised Officer for a fresh decision according to law after affording the proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties. While disposing of the aforesaid Criminal Revision No. 67/85, it was observed by the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Balaghat, on 31-12-1997. The learned IInd A. S. J. partly allowed the revision and remanded the case back to the Authorised Officer for a fresh decision according to law after affording the proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties. While disposing of the aforesaid Criminal Revision No. 67/85, it was observed by the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Balaghat, that since Shri Quazi, who ordered the confiscation of the aforesaid vehicle in the capacity of Authorised Officer, got the proceeding of seizure of aforesaid vehicle also conducted as per his direction, therefore, he was not competent to pass the order of confiscation, in the capacity of Authorised Officer. Then, in compliance to order dated 31-12-1997 passed by IInd AS. J. , Balaghat, in Criminal Revision No. 67/85, the confiscation proceedings were commenced afresh since 31-12-1997. Thereafter, the statements of defence witnesses--Bhakhtraj Asati, Shankarlal and Buddhulal are found to have been recorded by the Authorised Officer on 15-5-1998 and 10-6-1998. The statements of fourth defence witness Ram Kumar Asati, is noted to have been recorded on 17-7-1998. Then, after conclusion of recording of evidence of the parties, the Authorised Officer, Balaghat, passed the order of confiscation of aforesaid vehicle afresh, on 30-12-1998. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid confiscation order dated 30-12-1998 also in appeal before the Conservator of Forest, Balaghat, who remanded the matter back to the Authorised Officer with a direction that the statement of officer who made seizure of the vehicle, is not recorded and hence the directions issued by the Court of IInd A. S. J. , Balaghat, are not complied with. ( 4. ) ON 15th March, 2000, the Authorised Officer recorded the statements of P. D. Ghodke, Forest Range Officer, Lamta, who made the seizure of the Truck, at the initial stage. Again on 3rd of August, 2000, the defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners and arguments of both the parties were heard. By order dated 30-8-2000, the Authorised Officer, Balaghat, once again confiscated the aforesaid vehicle. This order of confiscation dated 30-8-2000, was unsuccessfully challenged on behalf of these petitioners, in Appeal No. 8/2000 before the Conservator of Forest, Balaghat, who disposed of the same on 30-9-2000. By order dated 30-8-2000, the Authorised Officer, Balaghat, once again confiscated the aforesaid vehicle. This order of confiscation dated 30-8-2000, was unsuccessfully challenged on behalf of these petitioners, in Appeal No. 8/2000 before the Conservator of Forest, Balaghat, who disposed of the same on 30-9-2000. Then, these petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No. 63/2000, challenging the order dated 30-8-2000 passed by the Authorised Officer as also order dated 30-9-2000 passed by the Conservator of Forest, Balaghat, before the IInd A. S. J. , Balaghat, which stood disallowed and rejected by order dated 17-8-2001. ( 5. ) IT is argued by Shri A. S. Jha, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the Authorised Officer so also the Conservator of Forest, Balaghat, failed to correctly appreciate the statement of the defence witness Shankarlal, who was the driver of the Truck in question. It is also submitted that the explanation given in defence ought to have been accepted by the Authorised Officer so also the Appellate Authority, which is not done in this case. It is further submitted that while disposing of Criminal Revision No. 67/85 on 31-12-1997, the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Balaghat, directed for a fresh enquiry and hence the statements recorded earlier were not required to be considered by the Authorised Officer, yet he considered those statements while passing the confiscation order dated 30-8-2000, which is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. ( 6. ) BUT a perusal of order dated 31-12-1997 passed by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Balaghat, in Criminal Revision No. 67/85, reveals that the learned IInd A. S. J. , Balaghat, did not debar the Authorised Officer from considering the statements, which were earlier recorded during the course of proceeding, but remanded the case with this direction that after affording the proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties as per law, the Authorised Officer shall record his finding afresh and dispose of the case. Then, it is already explained by me that after receipt of the case on remand, the Authorised Officer recorded the statements of many witnesses produced on behalf of these petitioners in defence, and so also the statement of Shri Ghodke, the officer who initially seized the vehicle on 31-5-1985. Then, it is already explained by me that after receipt of the case on remand, the Authorised Officer recorded the statements of many witnesses produced on behalf of these petitioners in defence, and so also the statement of Shri Ghodke, the officer who initially seized the vehicle on 31-5-1985. A perusal of proceedings recorded by Authorised Officer in confiscation case, after receipt of case on remand, in compliance to order dated 31-12-1997 passed by IInd A. S. J. , Balaghat, and so also after the receipt of the case in compliance to order passed by Conservator of Forest on 8-10-1999 in appeal, which was filed challenging the order dated 30-12-1998, passed by the Authorised Officer, reveals that full opportunity was afforded to both the parties, to lead their evidence. No request was made on behalf of the petitioners to call the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents, for further cross-examination and hence the learned Authorised Officer is found to have committed no illegality in appreciating the statements recorded by him, earlier to the remand of the case by the Court of Revision on 31-12-1997. Thus, it is not found to be a case of grave miscarriage of justice or even miscarriage of justice. ( 7. ) SO far as appreciation of evidence is concerned, this is not permissible in exercise of inherent powers and hence, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is liable to be disallowed and rejected. This petition is therefore, disallowed and rejected accordingly.