Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 421 (JHR)

HILIP KUMAR GORAIN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2004-04-16

LAKSHMANA RAO

body2004
Judgment : LAKSHMANA RAO, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER by filing this criminal writ petition has prayed to take action against Respondent No. 2 - Divisional Forest officer, Dumka Division, Dumka who has not released the truck of the petitioner bearing no. WGD-1442, although the sureties have earlier duly been furnished by the petitioner before the authorities who had ordered for release of the truck without any delay. By I. A. No. 235 of 2003, an application for amendment in paragraph-1 was filed in which it was prayed for quashing the order dated 3-8-2001 passed by the Revisional authority-cum-Secretary, Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, who is Respondent No. 3, and has stayed order dated 16-4-2001 passed by the deputy Collector-cum-Confiscating Officer. By filing another I. A. No. 1052 of 2003, the petitioner has further prayed by amending paragraph-1 of the writ application praying therein for quashing the order dated 2-7- 2003 / 3-7-2003 passed by Respondent No. 4 - Deputy Commissioner, Dumka who passed order to confiscate the truck. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is the registered owner of a public commercial vehicle truck bearing No. WGD-1442. The said truck was under the management of his driver Nairit Hajra whom he had warned not to load any contraband article. On 3-3-1999, the truck was stopped at Masaliya by one Binod Sah who requested the driver to carry 10 small pieces of Simal wood belonging to Adivashi and to carry it up to Saw-mill of Raj Narayan within the district of Birbhum (West Bengal ). The driver believing that the Simal wood was from jamabandi land of the owner loaded and proceeded for its destination which was intercepted by the Forest Official and the driver was arrested. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed petition for release of his truck which was refused and was confiscated. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in course of argument has relied a case reported in 2000 (1) Pat LJR 232 in Ganesh ram Dokaniya v. State of Bihar in which it was held that Sections 52b and 52c of the indian Forest Act, 1927 provides that, "no revision lies before the Commissioner -cum- secretary of the Department against an interim direction of the Collector for release of the truck". In this present case, Respondent no. 4 - Deputy Commissioner passed order dated 24-3-2001 in Confiscation Case no. In this present case, Respondent no. 4 - Deputy Commissioner passed order dated 24-3-2001 in Confiscation Case no. 1 of 1999-2000 releasing the truck of the petitioner on furnishing two sureties of rs. two lakhs. Again, Deputy-Commissioner, dumka by order dated 2-7-2003 / 3-7-2003 in Confiscation Case Appeal No. 1 of 1999- 2000 confiscated the truck vacating his earlier order dated 24-3-2001 and 16-4-2001. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner (Respondent no. 4) has confiscated the truck. not in a revision application but in Confiscation Appeal no. 1 of 1999-2000. Hence the authority relied which bars revision before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Department against an interim direction of the Collector for the release of the truck is not helpful to this petitioner. It was further submitted that the valuation of the simal woods loaded in the truck were valued not more than rs. 1500/- whereas the valuation of the truck is not less than Rs. 2. 5 lakhs. Hence, the confiscation under such circumstances is not justified and has relied a case reported in 1996 (2) Eastern Cri C 118 (Patna) in Anil kumar Gupta, v. State of Bihar where order of confiscation of a truck valued at Rs. five lakhs for contraband worth Rs. 2000/- or a little more was not justified, rather imposition of fine in lieu thereof shall meet the ends of justice and Section 52 (3) can be read to include such a power. In that view of the fact, the orders passed for confiscating the vehicle by the appellate authority and the revisional authority upholding the confiscation of the truck was set aside. ( 5 ) LEARNED JC to GP-II on behalf of respondents has submitted that the order passed by appellate authority on 16-4-2001 has been stayed by the Revisional authority in his order dated 3-8-2001 in which revisional authority directed the apppellate authority to pass final order in appeal petition pending before him. The order of appellate authority was stayed, hence question of releasing the truck by Respondent no. 2 does not arise. It was further argued that the similar trees were not from the lands of the Adivashi, rather it was found felled in Mauza Ranga No. 14, Thana masauliya, District Dumka from Dag No. 805 and 1241 which is marked as" forest area belonging to the Government. The truck in question was once fined in Birbhum (W. B.) in a forest offence. The truck in question was once fined in Birbhum (W. B.) in a forest offence. The truck owner (petitioner) has got his own Saw-mill at Durgapur who illegally transports woods. It was further stressed that the petitioner truck owner is one of the inter-State wood smugglers. The driver was carrying forest woods without any valid transit permit. On these grounds, It was submitted that the appellate authority cum Deputy Commissioner, dumka passed final order dated 2-7-2003/ 3-7-2003 in Confiscation Appeal No. 1 of 1999-2000 after hearing both parties and on the basis of the materials available on records. Hence there is no illegality in confiscating the vehicle in question which is a vehicle of habitual offender. ( 6 ) IN this present case in hand, the vehicle of the petitioner was found to be involved in the commission of forest offence as the plea taken by the petitioner regarding woods loaded in it, was from the Raiyati lands of the Adivasi was found incorrect. It revealed that the Simal woods were felled and were loaded in the truck from the forest area. Petitioner runs his own Saw mill in the district of Birbhum, West Bengal. On earlier occasion also, vehicle was found involved in commission of forest act at Birbhum and was fined. Although the confiscation of a vehicle is a harsh and serious penalty and it can be resorted to for those cases where the offence conclusively indicates of no other possibility. Felling of trees from forest area has disturbed the balance of ecological environment. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that such vehicle ought not to be ordinarily released to the owner as a matter of routine. ( 7 ) VIEWED thus, I find no merit in this criminal writ petition which is dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .