Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 991 (PAT)

Arif Kamal Khan v. State Of Bihar

2005-11-18

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2005
Judgment Mridula Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. This application has been filed by the petitioner, who is the owner of the truck bearing Registration No. HR 38K 0403, for a direction to the respondents to release the same. Petitioners case is that he has purchased this truck through Financer and is paying monthly instalment of Rs. 30,000.00 to the financer. The truck was engaged on the relevant date by the transport contractor for carrying wood. On relevant date the truck loaded with wooden logs was coming from Allahabad to Gaya. During the course of transportation the vehicle in question was intercepted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya for committing the offence Under Secs. 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The vehicle in question was seized on 13.8.2005 and Confiscation case No. 8 of 2005 was intimated. The truck was forwarded with the seized articles, before the Court of Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya. Petitioners anxiety is that seized vehicle which has been purchased through financer, if remain under seizure for a long time, it will be damaged. Petitioner will also suffer huge monetary loss. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that u/s. 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act there is provision for seizure of forest produce when there is reason to believe that forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce. sec. 3 of sec. 52 is subject to the provision of sec. 5 of the Forest Act. No order of confiscation under Sub-sec. (3) of any tools, arms boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article (other than the forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-sec. (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, arms, boats, vehicle, chains other article were used without his knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for commission of forest offence. 4. The petitioner through the driver of the vehicle has already filed an application before the authority that admittedly there was permit for transportation of the wood but without the knowledge of the driver some woods were loaded for which no permit was granted. 4. The petitioner through the driver of the vehicle has already filed an application before the authority that admittedly there was permit for transportation of the wood but without the knowledge of the driver some woods were loaded for which no permit was granted. The driver or the owner of the truck did not have any knowledge that the wood which has been loaded is Mahua wood. 5. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the State and also considering the fact that the petition in this respect has already been filed by the petitioner, which is pending before the authorised officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya, this matter is being disposed of with observation/direction that the authority concerned will dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner considering the fact that the confiscation proceeding is pending since long, the vehicle which has been seized in connection with Forest Case No. 8 of 2005 should be released by the authorised officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya disposing of the pending application. The order must be passed within two weeks from the date of production/communication of this order. It is made clear that the vehicle which has been purchased through the Financer should not be and must not be detained, as it will not be beneficial for the State or for the owner. 6. Accordingly this application is disposed of.