Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 990 (HP)

Khem Singh v. State of H. P.

2016-06-01

P.S.RANA

body2016
ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order of learned Sessions Judge-cum-District Judge Mandi (H.P.) announced in Cr. Appeal No. 22/2014 title Khem Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. Brief facts of the case: 2. On dated 23.01.2014 naka was operated on National Highway at Saulikhad and at about 6.30 AM vehicle No.HP-65-2910 and vehicle No. HP-33-B-4952 came from Kullu side and when police officials directed drivers of the vehicles to stop the vehicles then drivers of the vehicles did not stop the vehicles and broken the forest barrier and driven the vehicles and thereafter vehicles were chased and vehicles were taken into possession. After search of the vehicles 16 bags of walnut bark and 3 scants of deodar were found kept in vehicle HP-65-2910 and four bags were loaded in vehicle No. HP-33-B-4952. Drivers of the vehicles could not produce the valid documents regarding source of forest timber kept in the vehicles and forest timber was illegally transported in the vehicles which took into possession. Authorized fficer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer Mandi seized the vehicles. Sh. Khem Singh petitioner filed application for release of vehicle No. HP-65-2910 before learned Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer Mandi (H.P.) under Forest Act which was rejected by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer Mandi (H.P.). 3. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer Mandi, Sh. Khem Singh petitioner filed appeal before learned Sessions Judge-cum-District Judge Mandi (H.P.) and learned Sessions Judge-cum-District Judge Mandi (H.P.) dismissed the appeal on dated 22.07.2015 under Indian Forest Act and affirmed the order of Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer Mandi (H.P.). 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioners. Court also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in the present petition: (1) Whether petition filed under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of Constitution of India is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? (2) Final Order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. 6. Court also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in the present petition: (1) Whether petition filed under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of Constitution of India is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? (2) Final Order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that vehicle was hired by third person with whom petitioner had no concern at all and petitioner was totally unaware about the forest timber which were found in vehicle No.HP-65-2910 and petitioner was not having the knowledge that the vehicle was plied for illegal activities relating to forest produce and on this ground petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In the present case it is prima facie proved on record that vehicle was driven by Sh. Virender Singh who is son of Sh. Khem Singh. There is prima facie no evidence on record that Sh. Virender Singh is residing separately from his father Sh. Khem Singh as of today. Forest produce was carried in vehicle No.HP-65-2910 and driver of the vehicle did not stop the vehicle despite directions by the police officials. There were no hammer/property marks on the forest timber and upon bags of walnut bark which were carried in vehicle No.HP-65-2910. In view of the above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the vehicle involved in the commission of offence under Indian Forest Act at this stage of case. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that vehicle was not driven by his son and his son has been wrongly implicated in the present case and on this ground petition be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Fact whether son of petitioner is involved in the commission of forest offence or not cannot be decided at this stage of the case. Same fact will be decided by competent authority of law after giving due opportunities to both parties to produce evidence in support of their case because same fact is complicated issue of fact and cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 8. Same fact will be decided by competent authority of law after giving due opportunities to both parties to produce evidence in support of their case because same fact is complicated issue of fact and cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has purchased the vehicle to earn his livelihood by way of financing the vehicle from the bank and almost eighteen months lapsed and vehicle is lying seized with the Forest Department and on this ground petition be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that felling of trees from forest area disrupts balance of ecological environment. It was held in case reported in AIR 2000 Apex Court 2729 title State of Karnataka vs. K. Krishnan that vehicle seized for committing forest offence should not normally be returned to party till culmination of proceedings in respect of forest offence. It is well settled law that ruling given by Apex Court is binding upon all Courts throughout India as per Article 141 of Constitution of India. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that earlier an order was passed for release of vehicle by predecessor of Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer Mandi (H.P.) wherein a direction was issued to petitioner to submit security amount to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lac) in the shape of FDR and in pursuance to the directions FDR has been prepared by the petitioner and on this ground petition be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Petitioner did not place on record any order of Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer Mandi (H.P.) wherein a direction was issued to petitioner to submit security amount to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lac) for release of vehicle. Plea of petitioner that earlier order of Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer Mandi (H.P.) for release of vehicle on furnishing security amount to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lac) was passed is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit. (An assertion made without proof). Plea of petitioner that earlier order of Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer Mandi (H.P.) for release of vehicle on furnishing security amount to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lac) was passed is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit. (An assertion made without proof). Court has carefully perused the original file of Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer Mandi (H.P.) and there is no order in the original file relating to release of vehicle No.HP-65-2910 on furnishing security amount to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lac). 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is dependent on the said vehicle for earning his livelihood and petitioner will produce the vehicle whenever and wherever directed by the Court and on this ground petition be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is prima facie proved on record that petitioner is owner of vehicle No.HP-65-2910 and it is also prima facie proved on record that 16 bags of walnut stem bark and 3 scants i.e. 0.14m3 of deodar were found in vehicle No.HP-65-2910 on dated 23.01.2014 at 6.30 A.M. at place Sauli Khad. In view of the above stated serious allegations relating to carriage of forest produce in vehicle No.HP-65-2910 it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the vehicle at this stage of case. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final order). 11. In view of findings on point No.1 above present petition is dismissed. Observations made hereinabove will not effect merits of the case in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of the present petition. Record of learned Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer Mandi (H.P.) and record of learned Sessions Judge-cum-District Judge Mandi (H.P.) be sent back forthwith alongwith certified copy of the order. Cr.MMO No. 279/2015 is disposed of. Pending application if any also disposed of.