Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1459 (HP)

Rattan Dass v. State of H. P.

2019-09-27

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present revision petition is maintained by the petitioner under Sections 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against order dated 30.09.2009, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2007, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein. The petitioner preferred the said appeal challenging order dated 10.04.2007, passed in Case No. 2/2003-2004 by the learned Authorized Officer-cum-DFO, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., whereby the vehicle, i.e., Maruti Car having registration No. HP-10-1282 of the petitioner was ordered to be confiscated. 2. Tersely, the facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as under: As per the prosecution story, on 25.11.2003, at about 04:15 a.m., at Nankhari Chowk, a police team stopped a Maruti Car and a truck, having registration No. HP-10-1282 and HP-24A-2204, respectively, for checking. The truck was found loaded with 41 timber scants of timber of Kail and Rai. The said timber was embossed with hammer HT-11, but the said timber was being transported without any permit or licence. The police found that the Maruti Car was escorting the truck loaded with timber. Thus, both the vehicle and the entire timber were seized by the police after registering an FIR. Subsequently, the Authorized Officer-cum-DFO, Rampur Bushahr, vide order dated 10.04.2007, whereby the case was decided, ordered confiscation of both the vehicles. The petitioner laid challenge against the said order by filing an appeal in the learned lower Appellate Court, but the learned Lower Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 30.09.2009, dismissed the appeal, hence the present revision petition. 3. As per the petitioner, the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Lower Appellate Court is against law and facts and the same is liable to be set aside. He has further averred that the learned Courts below have wrongly held that vehicle of the petitioner was involved in the offence under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act read with Section 379 IPC. As per the petitioner, his vehicle was wrongly ordered to be confiscated by the learned Authorized Officer-cum-DFO and upheld by the learned Lower Appellate Court, hence the present revision. 4. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Authorized Officer and the learned Lower Appellate Court have wrongly confiscated the vehicle of the petitioner and the findings to this extent are wrong. 4. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Authorized Officer and the learned Lower Appellate Court have wrongly confiscated the vehicle of the petitioner and the findings to this extent are wrong. He has argued that the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. He has further argued that the revision be allowed and the impugned judgments be set aside and the vehicle be released to the petitioner. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate has argued that the findings rendered by the learned Authorized Officer and upheld by the learned Lower Appellate Court do not suffer from any infirmity. There is nothing on record which could establish that the vehicle of the petitioner was not involved in the offence. He has further argued that evidence speaks clearly about the involvement of the vehicle of the petitioner, so the vehicle had been rightly confiscated. He has argued that the petition be dismissed. 5. Indeed the reversionary jurisdiction is very wide and the Court can interfere to test the correctness, legality or even the propriety of any findings, sentence or order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dulichand v. Delhi Admn., (1975) AIR SC 1960, held that "the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appreciation of the evidence. Thus, the interference of the High Court in criminal revisions is limited and it is called for only in exceptional cases of gross miscarriage of justice, manifest illegality or perversity and not merely because another view was possible. However, keeping in view atypical nature of the case, it would be apt to examine the evidence and see on what basis the vehicle of the petitioner was ordered to be confiscated. 6. Precisely, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 25.11.2003 a police team intercepted the vehicle of the petitioner, i.e., Maruti Car No. HP-10-1282, alongwith truck, having registration No. HP-24A-2204. The truck was having 41 scants of timber and the car of the petitioner was escorting the truck. The Authorized Officer ordered confiscation of both the truck and the car the petitioner preferred an appeal and the learned Lower Appellate Court upheld the order of the learned Authorized Officer. Now, the petitioner sought indulgence of this Court by filing the present revision. The Authorized Officer ordered confiscation of both the truck and the car the petitioner preferred an appeal and the learned Lower Appellate Court upheld the order of the learned Authorized Officer. Now, the petitioner sought indulgence of this Court by filing the present revision. As per the petitioner, his vehicle was not at all involved in any forest offence and nothing was recovered from his vehicle. 7. Indisputably, no forest produce was recovered from the vehicle of the petitioner, but it is not the case of the prosecution that forest produce was recovered from the vehicle of the petitioner. As per the prosecution, the truck, which was found loaded with timber, was being escorted by the vehicle of the petitioner. In the case in hand the statement of Shri Jagdish Chand is very important. Shri Jagdish Chand, the then Chowkidar of Forest Corporation was examined as PW-10. He was posted at Bahli Nala Depot at the relevant time. He has deposed that on the night of 24-25 November, 2003, at about 2.30 and 3 a.m. a truck came and it was being attended upon by a car, having registration No. HP-10-1282. He has specifically deposed that thereafter four persons alighted from the car and threatened him with revolver. Subsequently, these persons woke the labourers and also threatened them. They got the timber loaded in the truck by the labourers and when the timber was loaded the truck and the car went towards Nankhari. This witness named Rattan Dass (petitioner herein), Jawahar Lal and Rajinder Singh, being the persons alighted from the car and threatened him and Bhagat Ram (driver of the truck). This witness disclosed the registration No. of the truck, being HP-24A-2204. This witness, identified the petitioner herein in the Court, as the person who threatened him. He has further deposed that he telephoned at Police Post Nankhari and contractor of Forest Corporation qua the occurrence. On the subsequent day he was called by B.O. of HPSFC at nankhari and there he saw the same truck and the car parked in Police Post Nankhari. As per this witness, he saw the petitioner, Rajinder, Jawahar Lal and Bhagat Ram in the police post and identified them to be the persons who threatened him to get the timber loaded in the truck. As per this witness, he saw the petitioner, Rajinder, Jawahar Lal and Bhagat Ram in the police post and identified them to be the persons who threatened him to get the timber loaded in the truck. He had also identified the 41 sleepers of timber loaded from the depot, as they had mark HT-11 and HT(-). 8. The deposition of Shri Jagdish Chand, Chowkidar, goes unblemished and unstained and it can be safely held that statement of this witness sufficiently prove the involvement of the vehicle of the petitioner in the alleged offence. However, it would be apposite to also deal with the testimonies of other witnesses. First in the line is PW-1, HC Dharam Pal. He alongwith PW-2 Constable Yashwant Singh were present on the spot where the vehicles were intercepted. These witnesses have identified the petitioner, accused Bhagat Ram, being the drivers of car and the truck, respectively. As per their versions, a pistol type knife was recovered from the car and from the truck 41 slippers and a Gandasa were recovered. PW-3, Shri Dev Raj, deposed qua his role in the instant case and his version is not of that much importance. PW-4, Shri Ram Dayal, the then Timber Watcher, HPSFC, deposed that he accompanied the police to Bahli Nala Depot of Forest Corporation and in his presence the accused identified the spot wherefrom they loaded the timber. PW-5, Shri Sunil Verma, Contractor of Forest Corporation stated that on 25.11.2003, at about 04:00 a.m., Shri Jagdish Chand, Chowkidar, telephonically informed him qua the theft of timber and in turn he informed his partner and also the police. PW-6, Shri Nand Lal, Field Kanungo, is a formal witness and he had deposed the role performed by him. 9. The version of PW-7, Shri Duni Chand, the then Forest Guard, is very vital. He unequivocally deposed that Shri Bhagat Ram was driving the truck and one person was sitting with him. As per this witness, Rattan Dass (petitioner herein), Jawahar Lal and one more person were sitting in the car. This witness identified the petitioner and accused Bhagat Ram. He had measured the timber with one B.O. Shri Dhyam Singh and also signed the seizure memo. This witness also deposed that a pistol shaped knife was recovered from the car and from the truck 41 slippers and a gandasa were recovered. This witness identified the petitioner and accused Bhagat Ram. He had measured the timber with one B.O. Shri Dhyam Singh and also signed the seizure memo. This witness also deposed that a pistol shaped knife was recovered from the car and from the truck 41 slippers and a gandasa were recovered. PW-8, Shri Jwala Dass, hotel owner, through his deposition, further fortified that car and a truck was intercepted by the police and 41 slippers were recovered from the truck in his presence. This witness signed the seizure memo. PW-9, Shri Ram Ashrey, deposed that on 25.11.2003 he was associated by the police and car, having registration No. HP-10-1282, and truck, having registration No. HP-24A-2204, were intercepted. Though, he did not supported the prosecution story qua recovery of gandasa and knife, but, keeping in view the nature of relief sought in the present case, it does not have any role to play. 10. The deposition of PW-10, Shri Jagdish Chand, Chowkidar, stands exhaustively discussed hereinabove. PW-11, Shri Dhyan Singh, the then Block Officer of Forest Corporation, Nankhari, stated that he was called by the police when the vehicles were intercepted. He has further deposed that he reached the spot and found 41 slippers loaded in truck, having registration No. HP-24A-2204, and these slippers were having khudan mark and passing hammer of HPSFC. As per this witness, a gandasa was in the truck and a knife in the car. He measured the timber. The versions of PW-12, Constable Rakeshy Kumar and PW-13 Constable Bansi Lal, are not of much importance, thus not worth discussion. 11. Pw-14, Shri Tarsem Chand, the then Assistant Manger of Forest Corporation, Nankhari, deposed that on 27.11.2003 SHO, Rampur, called him, so he accompanied him to Bahli Nala Depot. As per this witness, in his presence, accused identified the spot wherefrom they loaded the timber in the truck. PWw-15, ASI Hari Singh, Investigating Officer fully corroborated the prosecution case and there is nothing which could smudge his testimony. PW-16, Shri R.S. Jaswal, the then Range Officer, Nankhari, deposed that on 25.11.2005 Shri Duni Chand, the then Forest Guard, came and informed that a truck and a car have been apprehended, so he went on the spot. On the spot he saw car, having registration No. HP-10-1282 and truck, having registration No. HP-24A-2204 were parked. PW-16, Shri R.S. Jaswal, the then Range Officer, Nankhari, deposed that on 25.11.2005 Shri Duni Chand, the then Forest Guard, came and informed that a truck and a car have been apprehended, so he went on the spot. On the spot he saw car, having registration No. HP-10-1282 and truck, having registration No. HP-24A-2204 were parked. The truck was loaded with 41 slippers of different sizes, which bore mark of HT - and HT-11. He has further deposed that he alongwith Shri Duni Chand, Forest Guard and Shri Dhyan Singh B.O. measured the recovered timber. As per this witness, police had recovered a knife from the car and a gandasa from the truck. 12. After comprehensively discussing the evidence and also keeping in eye on the settled legal position enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, discussed in the earlier part of the judgment, this Court has no other option, but to hold that the vehicle of the petitioner, i.e., Maruti Car having registration No. HP-10-1282, on the day of illegal transportation of wood, was escorting truck, having registration No. HP-24A-2204, which was loaded with 41 slippers of wood and these slippers were being illegally transported. Thus, the involvement of the vehicle of the petitioner is proved through the prosecution witnesses and the impugned judgments rendered by the learned Authorized Officer-cum-DFO and then by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. do not suffer from any infirmity and the same cannot at all be said perverse. 13. In view of the above, the petition which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.