Back
1994 Supreme(Pat) 287
PATNA HIGH COURT
A.N.Chaturvedi and Amir Das JJ.
Srikant Prasad Pradhan
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 227 of 1993 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 3, 1994
The Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984, which provides for state monopoly in the trade of specified forest produce, excludes the application of the Indian Forest Act to such produce, and does not provide for confiscation of vehicles used in carrying such produce.
Headnote:
CONFISCATION - BIHAR FOREST PRODUCE (REGULATION OF TRADE) ACT, 1984 - SECTION 5, 15, 19, 20 - INDIAN FOREST ACT, 1927 - SECTION 2(4), 32, 52(3) - JURISDICTION - CONFISCATION OF VEHICLE - SPECIFIED FOREST PRODUCE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - CONFLICT OF LAWS - STATE MONOPOLY - PENALTY - FORFEITURE - SEIZURE - SEARCH - ENQUIRY - OFFENCE - PROCEDURE - POWER OF AUTHORITIES - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - WRIT PETITION - LOCUS STANDI - OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLE - AGREEMENT - POSSESSION - LIABILITY - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - NATURAL JUSTICE - EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - PUNISHMENT - ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT - DISCRETION OF COURT - JUDICIAL REVIEW - QUASHING OF CONFISCATION PROCEEDING - EFFECT ON CRIMINAL PROCEEDING - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
A truck carrying Harre, Gum, and Katha Biscuits, which are enlisted in the schedule of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984, was seized by the Forest Officer under the suspicion of contravening the provisions of the Act. The Divisional Forest Officer initiated confiscation proceedings against the truck under Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act 9 of 1990. The petitioner, claiming to be in possession of the truck under an agreement with the owner, filed a writ petition challenging the confiscation proceeding on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and absence of provisions for confiscation of vehicles under the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the confiscation proceeding initiated by the Divisional Forest Officer was wholly without jurisdiction. The Court observed that the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984, which provides for state monopoly in the trade of specified forest produce, including Harre, Gum, and Katha Biscuits, does not contain any provision for confiscation of vehicles used in carrying such produce. The Court further held that Section 32 of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, which excludes the application of the Indian Forest Act to specified forest produce, precludes the application of Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, as amended, to the confiscation of the truck.
Issues: 1. Whether the Divisional Forest Officer had jurisdiction to initiate confiscation proceedings against the truck under the Indian Forest Act, as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act 9 of 1990? 2. Whether the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984, provides for confiscation of vehicles used in carrying specified forest produce?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Divisional Forest Officer did not have jurisdiction to initiate confiscation proceedings against the truck under the Indian Forest Act, as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act 9 of 1990, because the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984, which provides for state monopoly in the trade of specified forest produce, excludes the application of the Indian Forest Act to such produce. 2. The Court held that the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984, does not provide for confiscation of vehicles used in carrying specified forest produce.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the confiscation proceeding initiated by the Divisional Forest Officer. However, the Court clarified that the quashing of the confiscation proceeding would not be a defense per se in any criminal proceeding relating to the transaction in question.
A.N.Chaturvedi, J.
1. This writ petion under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the sole petitioner challenging the confiscation proceeding (Confiscation Case No. 2 of 1993) initiated by respondent No. 2 for confiscation of truck No. BRM 9615.
2. It is not disputed that the said truck is a public carrier. The truck was seized on 27-3-1993 at Hunterganj by respondent No. 3. The truck was, found loaded with Harre, Gum and Katha Biscuits. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, Divisional Forest Officer, Chatra North Forest Division under his letter No. 834 dated 16-4-1993 and letter No. 850, dated 29-4-1993 directed the petitioner to show cause as to why the truck be not confiscated. Copies of the said letters (notice) are annexures 3 and 4 to the writ petition. The petitioner is said to have filed a petition before respondent No. 2 for copies of certain paper which according to him had not been supplied to him till the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner is also said to have filed an application for release of the truck but no order was passed with regard thereto by respondent No. 2 and thereafter this writ petition for quashing the entire confiscation proceeding was filed by the petitioner.
3. It was asserted on behalf of the petitioner that he has no concern either with the purchase or possession of the articles seized from the truck rather the same were being transported by the employee of the petitioner under a bona fide belief that the owner of the seized articles had engaged the truck for transportation of the articles acquired in legal manner, Apart from the defence on the facts, it was also asserted on behalf of the pettioner that there being no provision for confiscation of a vehicle under the provisions of Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984, the initiation of the proceeding was wholly without jurisdiction.
4. It may be relevant to state here that immediately after the seizure of the truck the driver and khalashi of the truck, and two owners of the articles were arrested and the seizure was reported to the C. J. M., Chatra on 27-3-1993. Though in the show cause notice (annexures 3 and 4) it has not been mentioned as to under which provision of which Act the confiscation proceeding has been initiated but it was not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that the proceeding has been initiated under the relevant provisions of the Forest Act.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the initiation of confiscation proceeding on the ground that the articles seized from the truck are Harre, Gum and Katha Biscuits which are enlisted in the schedule of Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act and as such the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act will apply and Section 32 (1) of this Act debars the application of Indian Forest Act, 1972. It was further contended that since there is no provision for initiation of confiscation proceeding regarding a vehicle by respondent No. 2 under the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984, the entire confiscation proceeding is without jurisdiction and is fit to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behali of the respondents submitted that since there is no provision for initiating a confiscation proceeding under Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, the provisions of the Forest Act in this regard would apply and so the confiscation proceeding cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner being not the owner of the truck has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition.
7. The petitioner has brought on record copy of an agreement dated 6-3-1992 (annexure-1) for the purpose of showing that he has taken possession of the truck in question from one Mohan Lal Vaidya for the amount mentioned therein and as per agreement the amount is to be paid in instalments and after payment of the en
