JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---In this writ petition an order passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, dated 26th of July, 1988 reminding back the matter to the Authorised Officer is challenged on the ground that it is without jurisdiction.

2. A tempo bearing registration No. M.R.I. 6998 is owned by the petitioner. It is his case that he purchased this tempo from one Mansingh Nanaji Chavan and it is being used as a public carrier. On information received by the Range Forest Officer, flying squad, Shahapur, this tempo came to be seized. The tempo was found containing logs of teak wood being kept hidden under the bags of rice husk. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners and one Shivaji Jadhav were found seated in the tempo. Since it was noticed that illegally cut forest wood was carried in the tempo to be seized. The Forest Officer thereafter issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the tempo seized should not be confiscated. In response to this notice the petitioner filed his reply denying the charge. The Divisional Forest officer after considering the reply, and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the tempo was used in commission of the offence under the Forest Act, and therefore, ordered its confiscation. Being aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that no order could have been passed by the Authorised Officer unless an opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forward his case and in view of this he allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and remanded the matter back to the Authorised Officer with a direction to consider the objections of the petitioner and to give him an opportunity to prove the facts required to be proved under section 61-B(2) of the Forest Act. As already observed it is this order of remand which is challenged in the present writ petition.

3. Shri Maniyar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before us that under section 61-B of the Indian Forest Act, in its applications to the State of Maharashtra while deciding the appeal, the Sessions Judge had no power to remand the case. He can only confirm, modify or annul the order appealed against. Hence the order passed by the Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction. He also contended that even on merits remand was not necessary as no material was produced by the department before the Authorised Officer. He then contended that the property involved i.e. tempo is only worth Rs. 7000/- therefore, it was a petty matter and hence no action was called for. It is not possible for us to accept any of these contentions.

4. Section 61-D which provides for an appeal against the order passed under section 61-A and/or 61-C reads as under.

"61-D (1) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under section 61-A or section 61-C may, within thirty days from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property and the tools, boats, vehicles and cattle to which the order relates has been seized and the Sessions Judge shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant and the authorised officer or the officer specially empowered under section 61-C, as the case may be, to be heard, pass such order as he may think fit confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against.

(2) An order of the Sessions Judge under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court."

It is contended by Shri Maniyar that whenever the Legislature wanted that a power of remand should be conferred upon an appellate authority, it has specifically provided for it. In this context he has drawn our attention to section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the learned Counsel in the absence of such a power, an appellate authority, under section 61-D of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document