Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 618 (JHR)

Awani Kant Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2013-05-10

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2013
Judgment Prashant Kumar, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.07.2001 passed by respondent no.4 in Confiscation case no.03 of 1997,whereby the respondent no.4 confiscated petitioner's Tractor annd Trailer bearing registration no.BEN 9307 & BEN 9308. Petitioner further prayed for quashing the order dated 04.07.2002 passed by respondent no.3 in Confiscation Appeal No.5R/15/2001-2002 and the order dated 23.12.2002 passed by respondent no.2 in Revision No. (C)/25/2002, whereby and where under the Appellate Authority (Respondent no.3) and the Revisional Authority (Respondent no.2) confirm the order of Confiscating Authority (Respondent no.4). 2. On 10.06.1997, an F.I.R. lodged vide Gumla P.S.case no.127/97 under sections 414/353/201 of the I.P.C. and also under sections 33/41/42 of the Indian Forest Act, on the written complaint made by Forest Range Officer, Gumla. It is alleged that on 09.06.97 in the night, at about 1.00 a.m. a tractor bearing registration no. BPN No.9307 alongwith its trailer intercepted near Government Depot loaded with Gamhar wood. However, the driver of the tractor fled away but later on petitioner Awani Kant Sharma (owner of said tractor) came at that the place and he took away the tractor along with wooden logs. It appears that after three days i.e. on 13.06.1997, the Police Officers as well Forest Officers conducted a raid in the house of petitioner and from the court-yard of petitioner a tractor bearing registration no. BEN 9307 along with its trailer bearing registration no. BEN 9308 seized. It further appears that during pendency of criminal case, respondent no.4 initiated confiscation proceeding i.e. Confiscation Case no. 03 of 1997. It is relevant to mention that the Divisional Forest Officer, Gumla vide his order dated 03/07/2001( Annexure-2) confiscated the tractor bearing registration no.BEN 9307 alongwith its trailor. Against the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, vide Forest Confiscation Appeal No. 5R/15/2001-2002 which was also dismissed by order dated 04/07/2002( Annexure-3). Thereafter, petitioner filed revision before the Secretary, Department of Forest vide Revision Case no. (C) 25/2002 and the same was also dismissed by order dated 23/12/2002 ( Annexure-4). 3. Sri A.K.Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that respondent no.4 while passing the order as contained in Annexure-2, has not given any reason as to how he came to the conclusion that petitioner was involved in a forest offence and/or the tractor bearing registration no. 3. Sri A.K.Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that respondent no.4 while passing the order as contained in Annexure-2, has not given any reason as to how he came to the conclusion that petitioner was involved in a forest offence and/or the tractor bearing registration no. BEN 9307 along with its trailer were used in the commission of offence. From perusal of entire order-sheet of Confiscation Case no. 03/97 which was annexed along with the supplementary counter affidavit, it is clear that no evidence led on behalf of Forest Department to show that petitioner is involved in any Forest Offence and/or used the tractor in question for that purpose. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order passed by respondent no.4 is arbitrary. He further submits that aforesaid fact and circumstances has not been considered by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority. Accordingly, aforesaid impugned orders can not be sustained. 4. Learned Standing Counsel No.II after going through the order-sheet of Confiscation Case no. 03/97 has not disputed that Forest Department has not adduced any evidence in the aforesaid confiscation proceeding. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 6. From perusal of order dated 31/07/2001 passed by respondent no.4 ( Annexure-2) I find that he has concluded that petitioner Awani Kant Sharma, the tractor owner, himself involved in the whole incidence. Thus, forest offence clearly proved against him. He further came to the conclusion that tractor bearing registration no. BEN 9307 along with its trailer used in the commission of offence. But from perusal of entire order, I find that respondent no.4 has not discussed anyevidence as to how he has come to aforesaid conclusion. The entire order-sheet of Confiscation Case no. 03/07 has been annexed along with supplementary counter affidavit filed on 01.05.2013. From perusal of aforesaid order sheet, I find that several opportunities given to the Forest Range Officer for adducing evidence from 17.07.1997 till 16.07.2001, but no witness produced by the Regional Forest Officer and suddenly on 31.07.2001 impugned order has been passed. 7. Under the said circumstance, I find that no material placed before respondent no.4 for coming to the conclusion that petitioner had committed any forest offence and his tractor bearing registration no. BEN 9307 along with its trailer has been used for committing such offence. 8. 7. Under the said circumstance, I find that no material placed before respondent no.4 for coming to the conclusion that petitioner had committed any forest offence and his tractor bearing registration no. BEN 9307 along with its trailer has been used for committing such offence. 8. It is well settled that confiscation proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding, therefore, it is imperative upon the confiscating authority to give cogent reason based on evidence for coming to the conclusion that the vehicle in question has been used for commission of any forest offence. 9. As noticed above, in the instant case, no evidence adduced by the Forest Range Officer, Gumla in support of his allegation made in the F.I.R. that petitioner has committed any forest offence and/or vehicle u7sed for that purpose. Under the said circumstance, it appears that the conclusion arrived at by respondent no.4 is merely based on conjecture and surmises , therefore, the same is arbitrary. Accordingly, it cannot be sustained by this Court. 10. From perusal of Annexures 3 and 4, I find that petitioner has specifically taken a ground that there is no proof before the Divisional Forest Officer that any forest offence committed by the petitioner and he used tractor in question for committing such offence. It further appears from the order of Appellate Court that it noticed that no investigation or evidence produced to support the observation that petitioner involved in the whole incident. But inspite of that the Appellate Court and the Revisional Court sustained the order of Divisional Forest Officer ( Respondent no.4). Under the said circumstance, aforesaid two orders i.e. Annexures- 3 and 4 are also liable to be set aside. 11. In view of the discussions made above, I find that the impugned orders suffer from serious illegality and irregularity. Accordingly, I allow this application and quash the orders dated 31/07/2001, 04/07/2002 and 23/12/2002 as contained in Annexures- 2, 3 and 4 respectively.