Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 708 (JHR)

Subrata Dutta v. State of Jharkhand

2010-07-06

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
ORDER : The petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous application, has challenged the very initiation and continuance of the criminal proceedings against him vide B.F. No. 36 of 2005 arising out of Reference No. 14P dated 27.7.2005 for the offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and under the provisions of Establishment of Depot Management Ordinance of 1983 pending in the court of Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro. 2. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the State. 3. Facts of the case, as appearing from the reference/FIR filed by the opposite party No. 2 namely, the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhanbad Forest Division, Chas at Bokaro, is that on 15.07.2005 at about 4.00 PM, the Forest Area Officer, Chas intercepted a truck loaded with wood which was coming from Purulia side. The driver and khalasi of the truck fled away. On search of the papers of the vehicle it was found that a road permit was issued by the Beat Officer of the Kuilapal Forest Range, West Bengal vide permit No. 0602172 dated 17.07.2005 for transporting 21 cubic metres of firewood to Tirupati Food Product, Chas, Bokaro. It is alleged that on measurement it was found that volume of the firewood loaded on the truck was more than 30 cubic metres. Furthermore, the officer did not find any Establishment by the name of Tirupati Food Product, Chas, Bokaro. 4. On the allegation that there has been violation of the provisions of the Forest Act and Depot Management Ordinance, the truck along with the goods loaded thereon, was seized and the prosecution report was drawn up not only against the driver and khalasi of the truck but also against the owner of the truck namely, the present petitioner. Simultaneously, a confiscation proceeding was initiated for confiscation of the vehicle. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submit that the entire prosecution is vitiated by malafides and is an abuse of the process of court because the prosecution report of the case has been prepared only with malafide intention to harass the petitioner. Simultaneously, a confiscation proceeding was initiated for confiscation of the vehicle. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submit that the entire prosecution is vitiated by malafides and is an abuse of the process of court because the prosecution report of the case has been prepared only with malafide intention to harass the petitioner. Learned Counsel explains that even as admitted in the prosecution report, the petitioner did possess the valid permit for transporting the wood on his vehicle and at the relevant time, the firewood was to be transported and delivered to M/s. Tirupati Food Product, Chas in the district of Bokaro which is a Unit for production of Bread and Bread like Food. The firewood was legally and genuinely purchased from M/s Shyam Timber Traders, Purulia, a registered Forest Contractor and general order supplier and the consignment of firewood was entrusted to the petitioner for its transportation and delivery at Tirupati Food Product, Chas, in the district of Bokaro. It was in course of transit that the vehicle was intercepted and illegally detained. 6. Learned Counsel submits further that in the confiscation proceeding, even though the petitioner had pleaded the same facts as stated above, the Confiscation Officer had proceeded to pass an order of confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle. Against the order of confiscation, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 8.6.2006, the appellate authority had set aside the order of confiscation by considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and by recording his observation that the firewood which was seized from the truck of the petitioner, was in fact sold by the Forest Department and the consignment was loaded and dispatched by the forest godown and the transit permit was accordingly issued in favour of the vehicle and there was no fault whatsoever on the part of the owner of the vehicle. 7. Learned Counsel submits that in the light of the above facts, even as acknowledged by the competent authority, it is established that the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever for allowing transportation of the firewood on his truck and as such, his prosecution for the alleged offences is totally an abuse of the process of law. 8. 7. Learned Counsel submits that in the light of the above facts, even as acknowledged by the competent authority, it is established that the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever for allowing transportation of the firewood on his truck and as such, his prosecution for the alleged offences is totally an abuse of the process of law. 8. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would refer to the prosecution report and submit that after seizure of the truck, the documents which were found in the vehicle, were verified and it was found that since no such establishment by the name of Tirupati Food Product was found at Chas, a genuine suspicion was raised that the forest produce was being illegally transported. Learned Counsel for the State however concedes that in the orders passed by the appellate authority in the confiscation proceeding, an observation has been recorded on the basis of the facts of the case that the firewood was genuinely purchased from the forest contractor and the same was being bonafidely transported by the petitioner's vehicle and therefore, the petitioner was not at fault in any manner. 9. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find that since a clear observation has been made by the appellate authority in the confiscation proceeding that there was no reason for confiscating the vehicle since the petitioner was not at fault in allowing the transportation of the forest goods on his vehicle, the prosecution of the petitioner on the same facts on the ground that certain offences under the Forest Act are made out prima facie against the petitioner, is misconceived and perse illegal. The continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is therefore certainly an abuse of the process of court and cannot be allowed. 10. In the light of the facts and circumstances and the discussions made above, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner vide B.F. Case No. 36 of 2005 arising out of Reference No. 14P dated 27.7.2005 for the offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act pending in the court of Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro or his successor Court, is hereby quashed. Application allowed.