JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, Acg., C.J.:---This writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the judgement dated 11th August, 1986, passed by the Addl. Session Judge, Dhule, in appeal filed under section 61-D of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, confirming the order of confiscation of the truck by the authorised officer.

2. A truck bearing No. MWD 7951 belonging to the present petitioner was intercepted on 26th May, 1986 on Bombay-Agra road near Dhule by the Flying Squard of the Forest Department. On the search of the truck, 93 pieces of teak wood were found loaded therein without there being a pass or permit. Therefore, the wood as well as truck were seized and an offence was also registered. After issuing the necessary show cause notice and giving an opportunity to him of being heard, the authorised officer passed an order of confiscation of the truck. It came to be challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in appeal. The Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the finding of fact recorded by the authorised officer dismissed the appeal. As already observed, it is against this appellate order, present writ petition is filed.

3. Shri Mohite learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended before us that the provisions of section 61-A to 61-G of the Indian Forest (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1984 are ultra vires of Article of the Constitution of India, being wholly unreasonable and arbitrary. He also contended that even on merits the orders passed by the authorised below are illegal.

4. It is not possible for us to accept any of these contentions. As to what is the scope of the provisions of section 61-A to 61-G fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in (Divisional Forest Officer v. G.V. Sudhakar Rao)1, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 328 in the context of somewhat similar provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act. After scrutinising the relevant provisions, the Supreme Court observed in para 5 of the report as under :-

"The change in the law was brought about with a view to prevent the growing menace of ruthless exploitation of Government forests by illicit felling of teak and other valuable forest produce by unscrupulous traders, particularly from the reserved forest by providing for a machinery and confiscation of illegally felled tress or forest produce by the Forest authorities. Under section 45 of the Act as it stood, where a person was convicted of a forest offence, the Court sentencing him was empowered to order confiscation to the Government of timber or forest produce in respect of which a forest offence was committed and of any tool, boat, vehicle other than a cart drawn by animals vessels or other conveyance or any other article used in committing such offence. Although there was a provision for seizure of such article in section 44 of the Act, there was no provision in the Act enabling the forest officers to confiscate such timber or forest produce and the implements, etc., used for committing forest offences even in a case where he was satisfied that a forest offence had been committed. In view of this, the Forest Department was finding it difficult to curb the forest offences effectively and quickly inspite of the fact that large scale falling and smuggling of forest produce was on the increase. Hence, it was thought necessary to empower the officials of Forest Department seizing any property under sub-section (1) of section 44, instead of merely making a report of the seizure to a magistrate, also to order confiscation of timber or forest produce seized together with all the tools, boats, vehicles etc. used in committing such offence. Statement of Objects and Reasons. The intendment of the Legislature in enacting Act 17 of 1976 was therefore to provide for two separate proceedings before two independent forums in the Act, one, for confiscation by a departmental authority exercising quasi-judicial powers conferred under sub-section (2-A) of section 44 of the goods forming the subject-matter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document