Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 604 (JHR)

Suraj Kumar Vishwakarma v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-06-22

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in Annexures 6, 7 and 8 to the writ application. 2. Annexure-6 is the order dated 22/ 10/1999 passed in Confiscation Case No. C-1/1999, whereby the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa, South Forest Division, an authorized officer under Section 52 of the Forest Act as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1990, confiscated the truck bearing No. ORM-2201, holding that the same was involved in commission of the forest offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 3. Annexure-7 is the order dated 3.1.2000, passed by the District Magistrate, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa as an Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the D.F.O. confiscating the said truck. 4. Annexure-8 is the order dated 8.5.2001, passed by the Revisional Authority-cum-Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the D.F.O. (Annexure-6) and the Appellate Authority (Annexure-7). 5. The facts in short are that on receipt of report of the Range Officer of Forest, Chaibasa, wherein it was stated that on 2.7.1999, around 2 p.m. in course of patrolling of Jhangiburu protected forest the. patrolling party seized truck bearing No. ORM-2201, which was loaded with stones. It was alleged that the stones were excavated from the said forest. The truck Driver and khalasi failed to produce any valid documents for the seized stones and they admitted that they were going to unload those stones for construction of bridge by R.E.O. near village Tanaral. The Driver and khalasi were arrested. Accordingly, it was alleged that the truck was found engaged in transporting stones, i.e. the forest produce from Jhangiburu protected forest area. 6. A criminal case was also lodged on the report of the Forest Guard, under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act against the Driver, khalasi and the petitioner. The confiscation case was initiated, which was registered as Confiscation Case No. 1/1999. 7. 6. A criminal case was also lodged on the report of the Forest Guard, under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act against the Driver, khalasi and the petitioner. The confiscation case was initiated, which was registered as Confiscation Case No. 1/1999. 7. As noticed above, the D.F.O. i.e. the Forest Officer vide his order contained in Annexure-6 passed an order for confiscation of the aforesaid truck, the appeal against the said order of the D.F.O. filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by the District Magistrate vide order as contained in Annexure-7 and the revision filed by the petitioner before the Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi was also dismissed vide order as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition. 8. According to the petitioner the vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle owned by one Praveen Chandra Sharma and the petitioner is a power-of- attorney holder for the purposes of plying the said commercial vehicle. It is said that the truck was given on hire to the Department of Rural Engineering Organization, Chaibasa and at the instance of the authorities the aforesaid truck was engaged for transportation of construction and building materials and, therefore, the vehicle was under the direct control and possession of the Rural Engineering Organization. It is said that the petitioner has no knowledge at all about the commission of any forest offence. 9. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner as well as the Driver and khalasi of the truck in question have been acquitted and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts the impugned order as contained in Annexures-6 to 8 are illegal and as such are liable to be quashed. 10. So far the points raised on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner and other accused persons have been acquitted in the criminal case and, therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law is concerned, in my view such submissions is devoid of any merit. The confiscation proceeding under the Forest Act is altogether a separate proceeding wherein the Confiscating Authority is empowered to confiscate the forest produce including the tools, vehicles used for committing the forest offence. It has nothing to do with the criminal case before the Magistrate, whereon proof of the guilt of an accused conviction and punishment has to be awarded by the Criminal Court. It has nothing to do with the criminal case before the Magistrate, whereon proof of the guilt of an accused conviction and punishment has to be awarded by the Criminal Court. Therefore, only because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case it cannot be said that the order passed by the Confiscation Authority becomes bad in law. Accordingly, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in that regard is rejected. 11. Now, coming to the impugned orders, I find that the orders contained in Annexures-6, 7 and are perfectly legal and valid. From perusal of the aforesaid orders, it appears that all the authorities, after discussing in detail about the facts of the case, the points raised by the petitioner and the law involved in the case have come to a definite findings of facts that the truck in question was involved in commission of the forest offence. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference with the findings arrived at by the different authorities vide their orders as contained in Annexures-6, 7 and 8 to the writ application. 12. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application and as such the same is dismissed. Application dismissed.