2005 Supreme(Bom) 1249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SARDARKHAN s/o KHALILKHAN PATHAN
Versus
RANGE FOREST OFFICER, YAVATMAL
Decided On : (SEPTEMBER 16, 2005) 2006

Headnote:Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 52 and 61-A to 61-G - Confiscation proceedings - Authorised officer is a quasi-judicial authority and does not require evidence in strict sense to be tendered before him. - The Authorised Officer, considering confiscation of a vehicle, is conducting a quasi-judicial enquiry and does not require evidence in the strict sense to be tendered before him. A quasi-judicial authority would be prevented from considering any material only if it is shown that consideration of such material is barred by any specific provision of law. The Forest Officer tendering material in support of prayer for confiscation is not a police officer and the statements recorded by him do not fall in the category of "confession", since a confession could be made only by a person, who is accused of an offence confessing to his crime. Statements of some of the persons considered by the Authorised Officer would be at the best akin to admissions or former statements of witnesses, which would suggest an in ference as to a fact in issue or relevant fact, namely, use of the tractor and trolley in commission of a forest offence. Therefore, there was no impropriety on the part of the Authorised Officer in considering the statements recorded by the Range Forest Officer. Apart from complying with the principles of natural justice, the Authorised Officer has also complied with the requirements of Sections 61-A to 61-G of the Forest Act by giving full opportunity to the petitioner after supplying the petitioner all the relevant material. He has neither neglected to consider the relevant material nor was he swayed by any extraneous considerations. T he Authorised Officer was satisfied that a forest offence had been committed and that the tractor and trolley had been used in committing such offence. Both the Authorised Officer and the Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal from the order passed by the Authorised Officer, have considered requirements of law and applied law correctly to the facts, which were unfolded before them. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the matter.

       Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 52 and 61-B - Confiscation of vehicles. - There was no impropriety on part of Authorised Officer in considering statements recorded by Range Forest Officer while passing order of confiscation of vehicles used for carrying contraband articles.

       Forest Act, 1927 - Section 61-B(2) - Illegal transportation of wood - Vehicles confiscated - Quasi judicial enquiry - Strict evidencing not needed - Authorised Officer not a Judge - Forest Officer is not a police - Confession to Forest Officer not relevant - No mala fides alleged - No malice evidenced - Proceeding before Authorised Officer need not be looked as suspicion. - There was no impropriety on the part of the Authorised Officer in considering the statements recorded by the Range Forest Officer. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the consequences of relying on such statements would be giving freedom to the Forest Officer to concoct any statement they please and say that it was a statement made by the person concerned. He submitted that in a case like the present one where the tractor and the trolley were not actually caught with the contraband articles, reliance on such statements is extremely dangerous.

       Court quite appreciate the anxiety of the counsel for the petitioner. But then one must realise that with many tractors and trolleys around, when the Forest Officers choose the tractor and trolley of the petitioner for proposing confiscation, there must be some good reason for doing so. It cannot be said and has not been said that they had whimsically or maliciously picked up the tractor and trolley of the petitioner by concocting false statements for eventual confiscation, no mala fides are alleged by the petitioner. In the absence of any malice being shown or alleged, there would be no reason to look at the proceedings before the Authorised Officer with suspicion.