Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 690 (JHR)

Ram Awadh Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2012-05-03

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
Order By Court: In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwa, South Forest Division, in Confiscation Proceeding No.15/2001, whereby the petitioner's truck bearing No. MPL 5937 along with planks of Semal and Salai was confiscated. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order passed in Forest Confiscation Appeal No. xv/24 of 2001-02 and the order passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Case No.-C 44/2002 whereby the order of the confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle has been upheld by appellate as well as by the revisional authority. 2. According to the petitioner, he is a registered owner of the truck bearing Registration No. MPL 5937. The said vehicle is commercial and is given on hire. On 17.3.2001 the petitioner's truck was stopped by the Forester A.P. Singh and was seized along with the planks of Semal and Salai loaded thereon. Five persons along with driver and cleaner were arrested. On written report of the Forester a case was registered under Sections 33, 41, 42 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act. 3. It has been claimed by the petitioner that the planks were loaded by the accused No. 8 – Jasim Mian and accused No. 9 – Ram Rekha Sao forcibly at the point of pistol at village Baraon. The said accused persons had forced the driver and the cleaner to take the truck to Garhwa. The planks were old and used one in shuttering of roof, with cover of cement and concrete here and there. 4. On the basis of the said written report, the authorised officer initiated a proceeding for confiscation. Notice was also issued to the petitioner. On receipt of notice the petitioner appeared and filed show-cause stating, inter alia, that the truck was coming from Daltonganj and on the way it was stopped at pistol point by accused Jasim Mian and Ram Rekha Sao. They forcibly loaded the planks on the truck and forced the petitioner to take the planks to Garhwa. 5. Learned authorised officer -cum-Divisional Forest Officer, rejected the reply of the petitioner observing that if the planks were forcibly loaded on the truck, why the same was not reported to the Police. Learned Authorised Officer -cum-Divisional Forest Officer, on that basis, passed the impugned order confiscating the petitioner's truck and the planks loaded thereon. 6. 5. Learned authorised officer -cum-Divisional Forest Officer, rejected the reply of the petitioner observing that if the planks were forcibly loaded on the truck, why the same was not reported to the Police. Learned Authorised Officer -cum-Divisional Forest Officer, on that basis, passed the impugned order confiscating the petitioner's truck and the planks loaded thereon. 6. The petitioner assailed the said order in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. The same was registered as Forest Confiscation Appeal No.xv/24 of 2001-02. The petitioner took several grounds including the ground that at the point of gun the truck was forcibly taken under seize by the accused Nos. 8 and 9 up to Garhwa where it was seized. There was no police station in between. The petitioner had no occasion to lodge an F.I.R. The petitioner also took the ground that the petitioner had also no knowledge that the planks, which were being loaded, were forest produce or that the said accused Nos.8 and 9 have committed any forest offence. 7. Learned appellate court, without proper consideration of the grounds taken by the petitioner, dismissed the appeal. 8. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred revision before the Commissioner and Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner had taken several grounds in the revision. Learned revisional authority took the view that the petitioner's vehicle was seized with planks and the same itself made out a forest offence. He further observed that plea of taking up control of the truck forcibly by accused Nos. 8 and 9 is by way of pretext. Learned revisional authority also dismissed the revision. 9. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned orders passed by the aforesaid authorities. The said orders have been challenged mainly on the ground that it is an admitted case that the planks belonged to accused Nos.8 and 9. The petitioner is a registered owner of the commercial vehicle. The vehicle was coming from Daltonganj and in the mid-way it was stopped and planks were loaded by accused Nos. 8 and 9. There was no evidence on record to rebut that the planks were not forcibly loaded on the petitioner's truck. Learned revisional authority and other authorities have casually held that the said plea has been taken by way of pretext by the petitioner. 8 and 9. There was no evidence on record to rebut that the planks were not forcibly loaded on the petitioner's truck. Learned revisional authority and other authorities have casually held that the said plea has been taken by way of pretext by the petitioner. Antecedent report was called for by this Court and there was clear report that the petitioner was never involved in any criminal case and he has no criminal antecedent. The impugned orders have been passed without considering the petitioner's ground that the petitioner had no knowledge that the planks, were forest produce and involved in any forest offence. The planks were old and used for shuttering purpose which were apparent from bare appearance. The entire proceeding and the order is based on suspicion. The findings arrived at by the authorised officer and by the appellate and revisional authorities are based on no legal evidences and are wholly perverse and unsustainable and their orders are liable to be quashed by this Court. 10. The respondents contested the petition stating, inter alia, that though the petitioner was not the owner of the planks, the forest produce were found loaded on his truck. The petitioner could not produce any valid paper for transporting the planks. The allegation of taking the truck by the accused Nos. 8 and 9 by force, at the point of pistol is also not supported by any evidence. Learned authorised officer, appellate authority and revisional authority have considered the said aspect and have rightly rejected the petitioner's plea. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. 12. On perusal of the order of the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorised Officer, I find that though the petitioner had emphatically claimed that the truck was forcibly taken in seize by accused Nos. 8 and 9 at the point of pistol, no finding has been recorded on the petitioner's said claim. 13. Learned Authorised Officer has passed a brief order observing that seizure of illicit forest produce and arrest of truck owner on the spot leaves no room to believe that he did not connive with the offence. He held that transporting of illicit forest produce is as much a forest offence as cutting it from the forest. 13. Learned Authorised Officer has passed a brief order observing that seizure of illicit forest produce and arrest of truck owner on the spot leaves no room to believe that he did not connive with the offence. He held that transporting of illicit forest produce is as much a forest offence as cutting it from the forest. On that ground he has passed the impugned order confiscating the petitioner's truck. 14. Learned appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have also upheld the said order without considering the grounds taken by the petitioner and without appreciating that there is no evidence or material on record to show that it was within the knowledge of the petitioner that the planks loaded, which were old planks used in shuttering, were forest produce. 15. Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. 16. Sub-Section 5 of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment) clearly mandates as under :- “(5) No order of confiscation under sub-section (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-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or other article were used without his knowledge or connivance or as the case may be, without the 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.” 17. Thus, any property cannot be confiscated under Section 52 without any cogent material or record to establish the knowledge of the truck owner regarding commission of the forest offence. 18. In the instant case the authorised officer passed the order of confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle on the assumption that once the vehicle is found loaded with planks, no further enquiry was required for the purpose of confiscating the petitioner's vehicle. 19. The finding of learned Authorised Officer, is not based on any evidence on record. Assumption or suspicion howsoever strong is not a substitute for legal evidence. 19. The finding of learned Authorised Officer, is not based on any evidence on record. Assumption or suspicion howsoever strong is not a substitute for legal evidence. The appellate authority and the revisional authority casually and mechanically dealt with the matter and upheld the order of the Authorised Officer without applying their mind on the material on record as well as the relevant principles of law. 20. Even before this Court the respondents have not been able to point out any evidence on record to prove that the petitioner had knowledge that his vehicle is likely to be used for carrying forest produce and the vehicle was used voluntarily and was not taken under control by force by the accused Nos. 8 and 9. 21. Further, the value of the planks has been assessed by the respondents at Rs. 12,500/-and on that allegation the respondents have confiscated the petitioner's truck, value of which comes in several lacs. 22. In view of the above discussion, the orders of the Authorised Officer, appellate authority and revisional authority cannot sustain in law. 23. This petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 4.7.2001 passed in Confiscation Proceeding No.15/2001 by the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwa, South Forest Division; order dated 28.11.2002 passed in Forest Confiscation Appeal No.xv/24 of 2001-02 by the appellate authority and order dated 17.4/18.6.2003 passed in Revision Case No.-C 44/2002 by the revisional authority are quashed. 24. The respondents are directed to release the truck of the petitioner forthwith. 25. However, there is no order as to cost.