SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Bom) 1138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & C.V. BHADANG, JJ.
Bhagwandas s/o Kasturchand Agrawal - Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Maharashtra, Through the Conservator of Forest, Gondia Forest Division, Gondia. - Respondents
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.103 OF 1998
Decided on : JUNE 12, 2014

Advocates appeared:
Shri Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the petitioner,
Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Advocate with Shri Autkar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2,
Mrs. S.S. Jachak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.3 State.

The importance of providing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present evidence and defend against the confiscation.

Headnote:

Forest Offence - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 61(D) - Summary Criminal Case No.592/1996 - Criminal Appeal No.9/1997 - Criminal Writ Petition No.302/1997

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the owner of a saw mill, challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, which upheld the confiscation of teak wood logs and saw bands by the Assistant Conservator of Forests under Section 61(D) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioner had been acquitted in a previous criminal case related to the same matter.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was not given necessary opportunity during the confiscation proceedings, and therefore quashed the order of confiscation and set aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. The case was restored back to the authority for further proceedings.

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, adequacy of evidence for confiscation, and the impact of previous acquittal on the confiscation proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not given necessary opportunity during the confiscation proceedings, and therefore quashed the order of confiscation and set aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. The court emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present evidence and defend against the confiscation.

Final Decision: The Criminal Writ Petition was allowed, and the order of confiscation was quashed. The case was restored back to the authority for further proceedings.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

(Per : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 61(D) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1927 Act’), the petitioner, an owner of saw mill, challenges the judgment dated 7.3.1998 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in Criminal Appeal No.9/1997 dismissing it. Said appeal was directed against order dated 1.2.1997 passed by Authorised Officer and Assistant Conservator of Forests (Tendu Leaves), Gondia Forest Division, Gondia u/s 61 (D) of the Indian Forest Act confiscating teak wood logs and two saw bands earlier seized. This court has on 30.4.1998, while issuing notice before admission in the present criminal writ petition, directed that property confiscated under the impugned order shall not be put to auction till then and that interim order was continued on 22.6.1998 while issuing Rule. With the result, the property has not been put to auction and the order of confiscation has not attained finality.

2. Briefly stated facts show that respondent no.2 Assistant Conservator of Forest, an Authorised Officer visited saw mill of petitioner on 17.8.1996 and found 8 logs of teak wood admeasuring 1.261 cubic meter in a room in the premises of that saw mill. The logs were without any hammer marks and not supported by any Transit Pass. He, therefore, seized said logs as also the saw mill of petitioner. In saw mill there are two saw bands or machines one is 39” vertical saw machine while other is 42” vertical second saw machine. The motor vehicle namely truck having registration No. MWY5459 which was used to transport those logs from forest to saw mill belonging to one Ashok Dube and driven by Rakesh Tiwari also came to be seized. This action was u/s 52 of 1927 Act. It was alleged that Rule 3 sub-rule 17 and 27 of the Bombay Transit of Forest Produce (Vidarbha Region, Saurashtra and Kutch Areas) Rules, 1960 were violated and Forest Offence, accordingly was committed by these persons.

3. It is in this background that we have heard Senior Advocate Shri Anil Mardikar with Advocate Shri S.S. Ghate for the petitioner, Advocate Mrs. B.H. Dangre with Advocate Shri Autkar for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. S.S. Jachak for respondent no.3.

4. Senior Advocate Mardikar has pointed out that judgment has been delivered on 23.2.1998 in Summary Criminal Case No.592/1996 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amgaon and he acquitted present petitioner of offence punishable under Rules 3 and 17 and 25 of above mentioned 1960 Rules. He contends that, in this background, show cause notice issued to petitioner for confiscation needs to be appreciated. He submits that said show cause notice dated 10.10.1996 was duly replied by the petitioner on 25.10.1996 and, thereafter, petitioner received two notices for hearing scheduled then on 27.11.1996 and 28.11.1996. On 26.11.1996 petitioner forwarded a medical certificate and sought adjournment beyond 20.12.1996 as he was to continue under medical treatment from 25.11.1996 till 20.12.1996. Ignoring this document and request, impugned order came to be passed by Authorised Officer and Assistant Conservator of Forest on 1.2.1997. Said officer in paragraph 7 found that the petitioner remained absent and, therefore, concluded the confiscation proceeding against him. He submits that this order of confiscation was challenged in an appeal registered as Criminal Appeal No.9/1997 under Section 61(D) of 1927 Act before Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia and vide judgment dated 7.3.1998 that appeal came to be dismissed. He has then invited attention to judgment dated 25.7.2011 delivered by learned Single Judge of this court in Criminal Appeal No. 23/1999 to urge that thereby judgment and order dated 23.2.1998 acquitting petitioner in Summary Criminal Case No.592/1996 challenged by respondent nos.1 and 2 before this

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top