JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKER R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

2. The petitioner challenges the proceedings before the Forest authorities as well as the orders passed by the Forest authority and the lower Appellate Court in relation to confiscation of the property under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, hereinafter called as "the said Act". The challenge is two fold. Firstly, that the show cause notice issued by the respondent No. 2 was not accompanied either by the copies of the documents sought to be relied upon in support of the proceedings against the petitioner or even the list of witnesses and copies of their statements. Secondly, that the respondents failed to make report to the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence in relation to seizure of the property, as was otherwise required to be made under section 52(2) of the said Act.

3. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and on perusal of the records, it is seen that, undoubtedly, the petitioner has raised the ground in the memo of appeal before the lower Appellate Court that the show cause notice was bad in law for non-supply of copies of the documents and the statements of witnesses along with such notice to the petitioner and that therefore, the proceedings for confiscation were bad in law. However, the fact remains that the petitioner had not made any such grievance while replying to the show cause notice issued by the respondent No. 2. The reply filed by the petitioner in response to the said show cause notice nowhere disclosed any prejudice having been caused to the petitioner on account of non-supply of copies of the documents or the statements of witnesses which were relied upon for issuance of the show cause notice to the petitioner. The learned Advocate for the respondent has also drawn our attention to the fact that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was elaborate one, disclosing all the necessary details so as to enable the petitioner to meet the case which he was required to meet in answer to the said show cause notice.

4. If one peruses section 61-B of the said Act, it requires issuance of the show cause notice prior to the order of confiscation of any property under the said Act. It nowhere requires copies of such documents to be furnished to the addressee of the show cause notice along with such show cause notice. The statutory provision dealing with issuance of show cause notice, therefore, does not make it obligatory upon the authorities proceeding to take steps for confiscation of the property under the said Act to furnish the copies of such documents to the addressee of the notice along with such notice. No doubt, this would not mean that the addressee would not be entitled to get copies of such documents in the course of the proceedings. Certainly, the addressee can insist for supply of such copies in order to facilitate the addressee to defend the case against the claim of confiscation of the property under the said Act. Mere non-supply of such copies along with the show cause notice, however, would not in any manner vitiate the proceedings initiated by the authorities under the said Act for confiscation of the property. In any case, the petitioner had nowhere made any grievance in reply to the show cause notice that he was in any manner prejudiced by non-supply of such copies or that he was handicapped in filing his reply to the show cause notice on account of non-supply of copies of such documents. Being so, interference in the writ jurisdiction in the impugned order merely on the ground of failure on the part of respondent in supply copies of such documents along with show cause notice is thoroughly uncalled for.

5. As regards the second ground of challenge, placing reliance in the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in (Kamleshkumar Chhabra v. State of M.P. and others)1, A.I.R. 1985 Madhya Pradesh 130, it was sought to be contended that strict compliance of section 52(2) of the sai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document