Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1019 (PAT)

Durgesh Kumar @ Durgesh Lal v. State of Bihar

2015-08-12

RAKESH KUMAR

body2015
ORDER : Heard Sri Ramchandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AAG-6. 2. The petitioner, who is owner of a Tractor, bearing Registration No.BR-24A/1980, has approached this Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash an order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the Forest Commissioner, Bihar, Patna in Revision Case no.4/2007. By the said order, he has dismissed the revision preferred against the order dated 17.11.2006 passed in Confiscation Appeal Case no.12/01-02. It has been further prayed to direct the Respondents not to confiscate the tractor of the petitioner. 3. Short fact of the case is that on requisition, the tractor in question was found carrying Shisham logs. The Forest official tried to intercept the tractor, but the driver of the tractor fled away with the tractor. However, on a particular place, Sisham logs were found and, as such, after seizure of Shisham logs, a prosecution was also initiated against the petitioner under the Indian Forest Act by way sending report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. One another proceeding was also initiated for confiscation of Shisham logs as well as the tractor in question. It is not in dispute that the tractor in question was never seized by the forest official and without seizure, confiscation proceeding was initiated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in respect of seizure of the so called Shisham logs, there is no seizure list. According to him, without any seizure, confiscation proceeding was initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of referring to provision contained in Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 (State Amendments), submits that in absence of any seizure, no proceeding was required to be initiated and, as such, the order passed by the confiscating authority, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority are liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. However, he candidly accepted that in the present case, the tractor in question was never seized. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. It appears that immediately after issuance of notice in confiscation proceeding, the petitioner had approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction by filing C.W.J.C.No. 3657 of 2001. However, he candidly accepted that in the present case, the tractor in question was never seized. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. It appears that immediately after issuance of notice in confiscation proceeding, the petitioner had approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction by filing C.W.J.C.No. 3657 of 2001. The said writ petition was disposed of on 29.03.2001 with an observation that the petitioner may file show cause before the authority concerned raising all the issues and, thereafter, the confiscating authority was directed to dispose of the same within specified period of six weeks from the date of filing of show cause. 7. It appears that pursuant to the order passed by the writ court, the petitioner appeared before the confiscating authority i.e. the Divisional Forest Officer, Shahabad Forest Division, Sasaram. On perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer dated 15.06.2001, it is also evident that the vehicle in question was never seized and only on assumption that the petitioner had not shown his innocence, the confiscation order was passed in respect of the vehicle in question along with Shisham logs. The order of the confiscating authority was affirmed by the appellate authority i.e. the District Magistrate, Kaimur( Bhabua) in Confiscation Appeal Case no.12/2001-02 and approved by the revisional authority in Revision No. Forest /Mu (C) 4/2007. All the authorities have decided the matter against the petitioner knowing well that no seizure in respect of vehicle in question was affected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed Annexure-7 to the writ petition, which is Judgment dated 11.12.2003 passed in Forest Case no.24/2001/ Tr. Case no.633/03. He has argued that in the criminal prosecution, which was initiated on the same allegation, the petitioner has already been acquitted and discharged from the bail bond. Besides this, in view of Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (State Amendments), it is evident that without seizure, no confiscation proceeding can be initiated. In view of the fact that the vehicle in question was never seized, the order of confiscation may not sustain in the eye of law. 8. Accordingly, the entire order i.e. the order passed by the confiscating authority, appellate authority as well as revisional authority are hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed.