Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 267 (PAT)

Parmanand Sah v. State Of Bihar

2002-02-25

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment 1. The truck bearing Registration No. BHF-2961 was intercepted and it was found carrying 20 logs of Sesame tree by the forest authorities. A proceeding for its confiscation was initiated under Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act (as amended by Bihar Act 9/90) hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Authorised Officer, by its order dated 7.3.1999 (Annexure-5/1), directed for confiscation of the vehicle as also the Sesame logs. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal as provided under section 52-A of the Act which was registered as Confiscation Appeal No. 458 of 1999 and the Appellate Authority i.e., the District Magistrate, Katihar, by order dated 16.1.2000, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred application for revision as contemplated under section 52-B of the Act and the revisional authority, by order dated 6.1.2001 (Annexure-7), dismissed the revision application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, petitioner has preferred this application and prays for quashing of the said orders. 2. While assailing the impugned orders, Mr. Ambastha the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had instructed his driver not to carry any contraband article in the truck and, in fact, he was asked to carry bananas in the same, but the truck driver, at the point of pistol, was forced to transport the Sesame logs. In his submission, as the truck driver was forced to carry the Sesame logs, in view of Section 52(S) of the Act, the vehicle in question is not fit to be confiscated. 3. I do not have the slightest hesitation in rejecting the submission of the learned counsel. It is well settled that this Court, while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, do not appraise the findings afresh and interfered with the finding of fact only when it is shown that the said finding is perverse. 4. Here, in the present case, the authorised officer has given detail reasons as to why the plea put forth by the petitioner is not fit to be accepted. 5. He has observed that loading of 20 logs must had taken time but the driver did not utilise this time to report the matter to the police or any other authority. He has also observed that when the authority tried to stop the truck, the driver did not stop but tried to flee away with the truck. 5. He has observed that loading of 20 logs must had taken time but the driver did not utilise this time to report the matter to the police or any other authority. He has also observed that when the authority tried to stop the truck, the driver did not stop but tried to flee away with the truck. In case, the driver of the truck was carrying the logs forcibly, the very sight of the presence of the forest officials would have given him the solace and in normal course he would have stopped the truck which he has not done. 6. Said finding has been affirmed in the appeal and the revisional court has also dismissed the revision application preferred by the petitioner. The findings arrived at by the courts below, being an appraisal of evidence, same does not call for interference by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that while considering the application filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle during the pendency of the appeal, the appellate Authority, ought not to have decided the appeal on merits. 8. True it is that the petitioner, after filing the appeal, filed an application lor release of the vehicle and while considering the said application, the appeal itself, has been decided on merits. I am of the opinion that the course taken by the Authority in deciding the appeal, has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Nothing prevents the Appellate Authority to adopt the said procedure. 9. Learned counsel lastly submits that seizure of the truck was not in accordance with law and as such, the entire confiscation proceeding is vitiated. ! am not, at all, impressed by this submission of the learned counsel. The truck bearing Registration No. BHF-2961 was found carrying 20 logs of Sesame tree and the same was intercepted and thereafter, a proceeding for its confiscation was initiated and ultimately, the Authorised Officer holding that the truck in question was carrying the Sesame logs, same deserves to be confiscated. Said order has been affirmed in the appeal and revision and accordingly, I do not find ground for interference with the same. 10. I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly.