Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1219 (JHR)

Minor Jhagar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-09-01

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
Judgment By Court.-The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the order dated 7.11.1998 (Arinexure-5), passed by the D.F.O.-cum-Authorized Officer, by which the Truck bearing No. BES9545 belonging to the petitioner has been confiscated on the ground that the said Truck was engaged in committing the forest offence. Further prayer of the petitioner is to quash Annexure-6 dated If 0.5.2001, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, i.e. the Appellate Authority as well as the order dated 18.8.2001, contained in Annexure-7 (wrongly mentioned as Annexure-6 in the writ petition), passed by the Secretary," Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, i.e. the Revisional Authority, by which the appeal and revision have been dismissed. 2. As it appears that the Truck in question bearing registration no. BES-9545 of which the petitioner is the registered owner, was apprehended as the same was engaged in transporting 32 pieces of Semal wooden logs from Chaibasa to Sitamarhi on the basis of a. forged transit permit dated 29.4.1997 and, thereby, committing the forest offence punishable under Section .42 of the Indian Forest Act. 3.Admittedly, the transit permit, which was produced by the driver of the said truck was issued under the signature of the Range Officer, Hatgamaria, who was not an officer authorized to issue only such transit permit. According to the petitioner, he was not aware that the Range Officer being a Government Servant was not authorized to issue transit permit and that the Range Officer was involved in issuing fake transit permits. 4. Further case of the petitioner is that he is a minor and he was not present in the truck at the time it was apprehended and the Semal logs were seized. 5. On the facts and materials on record, all the three authorities, i.e. the D.F.O., Deputy Commissioner as well as the Revisional Authority have concurrently found that the truck in question was being run by the fattier of the petitioner and as per the confessional statement of the driver, who was driving the said truck, the Semal logs, which were seized, were loaded on the truck on the instruction of the father of the petitioner. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was also prosecuted for committing the offence under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act by the A.C.J.M., Chaibasa under the Juvenile Justice Act since the petitioner was a minor and by judgment dated 8.4.2004, the petitioner was acquitted from the Charge on the ground' that the prosecution failed to establish the charge and, therefore, in such a situation when the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charge, the order of confiscation passed by the D.F.O. and affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority, are liable to be quashed and the truck in question is liable to be released in favour of the petitioner. The judgment passed in the criminal case against the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit, filed by the petitioner. 7. From perusal of the judgment passed by the Criminal Court (Annexure7), it appears that in spite of the several opportunities given to the prosecution, the material witnesses did not turn up to depose against the petitioner. The prosecution failed to produce even the alleged forged permit, which was the basis of the charge and, therefore, on such ground the petitioner was acquitted. 8. So far as the confiscation proceeding is concerned, from the impugned order contained in Annexure-5, passed by the D.F.O., it appears that he, on careful examination of the seized transit permit, offence report, production report, statements of the truck driver and the show cause filed by the petitioner, arrived at a finding that all the transit permit, produced by the truck owner Ram Chandra Prasad, i.e. the father of the petitioner, were found to be fake since it was issued by the Range Officer, who was not authorized under the law to issue any such transit permit. 9. It is not disputed that the Range Officer, Forest was not empowered and authorized to issue transit permit rather it was D.F.O., who was only authorized to issue such permit but the petitioner's truck was found transporting Semal wooden logs on the basis of so-called transit permit issued under the signature of the Range Officer, Forest. Therefore it was rightly been held by all the three authorities that the said transit permit was fake and forged. 10. Therefore it was rightly been held by all the three authorities that the said transit permit was fake and forged. 10. When on consideration of facts and materials on record, findings of fact have been arrived not only by the Confiscating Authority, i.e. the D.F.O. but also by the Appellate Authority and affirmed by the Revisional Authority, then this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal over the said findings on facts arrived at by the three courts and this Court cannot substitute its own finding by reappraisal of the evidence on record unless it is shown that any of the finding, arrived by the aforesaid authorities, were perverse or were not based on record. But no such plea has been raised nor it has been shown in course of argument that any such finding arrived at by the D.F.O. or by the Appellate Authority or by the Revisional Authority were not based on record. 11. In such a situation, the orders as contained in Annexures-5, 6 and 7 cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, having found not merit this writ application is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.