Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2274 (HP)

Satya Parkash v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-10-26

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Kotgarh in Case No. 1/98 dated 31.12.2004, vide which the Authorized Officer ordered the confiscation of the Truck of the present petitioner bearing registration No. HP-06-1466 for carrying/transporting timber illegally, as well as the judgment passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2005 dated 22.12.2009, whereby learned appellate Court while upholding the order so passed by the Authorized Officer dismissed the appeal filed against the same by the petitioner. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that FIR No. 74/98 was registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act on 08.07.1998 on the facts that one Truck was signalled to stop by the police which was patrolling near Tikker, however, the driver of the Truck did not stop the same and the police party chased the Truck in the Gypsy and intercepted it after 2-3 Kms. near Jarol village and checking of the same revealed some sand as well as Kail sleepers loaded in the same. Though one person ran away taking advantage of the darkness, however, two persons, namely, Satya Parkash, S/o Sh. Daulat Ram, owner and driver of the Truck (i.e. the present petitioner) and Sat Pal, S/o Sh. Beli Ram were taken into custody. When the sleepers were checked, it was found that there was no hammer mark/Khudan mark on the same, which were seven in numbers. On these basis, Truck bearing registration No. HP-06-1466 was confiscated and subsequently produced before the Authorized Officer on 27th May, 1998 alongwith the material loaded in it which included the sand and seven Kail sleepers. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as the order passed by the Authorized Officer and the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court. 4. Records reveal that the present petitioner alongwith Conductor and Guman Singh faced trial before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr for commission of offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 4. Records reveal that the present petitioner alongwith Conductor and Guman Singh faced trial before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr for commission of offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Vide judgment dated 27.09.2003 passed in Criminal Case No. 69-2 of 1999 titled State of H.P. Vs. Satya Prakash, Satya Pal and Guman Singh, accused Guman Singh was acquitted of all the charges and Satya Prakash and Satya Pal were acquitted for commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, but they were held guilty and convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 5. In appeal, the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2003, titled Satya Prakash and Satya Pal Vs. State of H.P. vide judgment dated 01.09.2004 acquitted Satya Pal of the charges under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, however, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the present petitioner was affirmed. 6. This Court is pained to point out that during the course of arguments, the factum of the criminal revision petition having been filed by the petitioner against his conviction having been dismissed by this Court was not brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which amounts to concealment of material fact. It was the duty of learned counsel for the petitioner as an Officer of the Court to have had apprised this Court of the factum of said criminal revision petition having been dismissed and the conviction of the petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act having been upheld by this Court 7. This fact was pointed out at the Bar by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the present petitioner in fact had filed a Criminal Revision against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2003 (i.e. Criminal Revision No. 173 of 2004), which stands dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 23.11.2010. A copy of the judgment so passed by this Court has been placed on record by the learned Deputy Advocate General. 8. A copy of the judgment so passed by this Court has been placed on record by the learned Deputy Advocate General. 8. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take note of the provisions of Section 52B of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, which reads as under: ?52B. Issue of show cause notice confiscation under Section 52A.- (1) No order confiscating any timber (excluding fuelwood) resin, Khair wood and katha, ropes chains, boats or vehicles shall be made under Section 52A except after notice in writing to the person from whom it is seized and considering his objections, if any: Provided that no order confiscating a motor vehicle shall be made except, after giving notice in writing to the registered owner thereof, if in the opinion of the authorized officer it is practicable to do so, and considering his objection if any. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), no order confiscating any tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle shall be made under Section 52A if the owner if the tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle proves to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that it was used in carrying the timber (excluding fuelwood), resin, khair, wood and katha without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any and the person-in-charge of the tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against such use.? 9. In the present case, the petitioner before this Court happens to be the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle which was confiscated for commission of offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The petitioner stands convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, in these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to say that the timber was either being transported in the vehicle without his knowledge or without his connivance. The petitioner stands convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, in these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to say that the timber was either being transported in the vehicle without his knowledge or without his connivance. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner stands convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and the vehicle which has been ordered to be confiscated by the Authorized Officer is the same vehicle which was involved in the crime for which the present petitioner stands convicted, I do not find any infirmity with the order so passed by the Authorized Officer of confiscation of vehicle and affirmed in appeal by the learned appellate Court. Accordingly, as there is no merit in the present revision petition, the same is therefore dismissed.