Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 458 (JHR)

Bhuneshwar Prasad Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-03-02

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the learned A.C.J.M, Ramgarh whereby and where under the application for release of the vehicle bearing registration no. JH02L-2238 in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.40 of 2016 has been rejected. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the subject matter of the confiscation proceeding is pora coal which was found loaded in the vehicle and since pora coal does come within the definition of the forest produce in terms of section 2(iv) of the Indian Forest Act, the petitioners deserves release of the vehicle. Learned counsel further stated that without getting the verification report with respect to the ownership of the vehicle in question, the prayer for release of the vehicle had been rejected solely on the ground that the requisition has been submitted by the Investigating Officer before the Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh for initiation of confiscation proceeding of the truck as well as the pora coal loaded thereupon. Learned counsel submits that recommendation of initiation of the confiscation proceeding cannot be the ground for rejection of the application for release more-so when the confiscation proceeding is sought to be initiated with respect to the seizure of pora coal which admittedly is not the forest produce in terms of the provision of the Indian Forest Act. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. It appears that the vehicle bearing registration no. JH02L-2238 was apprehended with pora coal loaded upon it. The impugned order dated 21.06.2016 largely concentrated itself with respect to the recommendation of the initiation of confiscation proceeding made by the Investigating Officer. Neither the learned court below had considered the fact as to whether the pora coal comes within the definition of forest produce in terms of section 2(iv) of the Indian Forest Act nor the verification of the documents with respect to the ownership of the vehicle in question as claimed by the petitioners have been considered in Criminal Revision No.927 of 2015. This court has held that pora coal does not within the purview of forest produce in terms of section 2(iv) of the Indian Forest Act. This court has held that pora coal does not within the purview of forest produce in terms of section 2(iv) of the Indian Forest Act. In view of such finding, the same cannot be a impediment for considering the release of the vehicle as the confiscation proceeding sought to be initiated gets demolished by the finding of this court in Criminal Revision No.927 of 2015. Such circumstance, therefore, does entitle the petitioners for proper and appropriate consideration of their release application. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the learned A.C.J.M, Ramgarh in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.40 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after consideration of the documents of the petitioners with respect to the ownership of the vehicle in question. Learned A.C.J.M., Ramgarh shall pass necessary order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. It is made clear that recommendation of initiation of confiscation proceeding or for that matter initiation of confiscation proceeding in view of the discussion made above shall not come in the way of learned A.C.J.M., Ramgarh to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioners if the petitioners are ultimately found to be actual owner of the vehicle in question. 7. This application is disposed of with the aforementioned direction. Let the order be sent through ''FAX'' at the cost of the petitioners.