Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Nagendra Rai, J.
Mohammad Akhtar, Etc.Etc.
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction No. 567 of 1994 ; 582 of 1994 ; 693 of 1994 ; 757 of 1994 ; 767 of 1994 ;
Decided On : MAY 26, 1995
FOREST ACT - Confiscation of Forest Produce - Applicability of Indian Forest Act to Specified Forest Produce - Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 - Sec. 32 - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Secs. 52 to 52-D - Bihar Amendment Act, 1989 (Bihar Act 9/90) - Whether provisions of Secs. 52 to 52-D of the Forest Act with regard to confiscation are inapplicable with regard to the specified forest produce as defined under the Trade Act and the Vehicle used in carrying the specified forest produce.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed applications for the release of their vehicles, which were seized by the police or forest authorities for illegal transportation of Katha (Catechu) and Khair wood in contravention of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act and the Bihar Amendment Act, 1989. The petitioners contended that the provisions of the Indian Forest Act as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act will not apply in case of Katha and Khair wood in view of the provisions contained under Sec. 32(1) of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Trade Act), which provides that provisions of the Indian Forest Act shall not apply to specified forest produce in respect of matters for which the provisions are made under the Trade Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of Secs. 52 to 52-D of the Forest Act with regard to confiscation are applicable to the specified forest produce as defined under the Trade Act and the Vehicle used in carrying the specified forest produce. The Court held that Sec. 32 of the Trade Act does not bar the initiation and continuance of confiscation proceeding under the Forest Act by the authorised officer with regard to specified forest produce as defined under the Trade Act as well as vehicles etc. used for transporting the same provided the specified forest produce is a forest produce under the Act and offences under the Forest Act have been committed.
Issues: Whether the provisions of Secs. 52 to 52-D of the Forest Act with regard to confiscation are inapplicable with regard to the specified forest produce as defined under the Trade Act and the Vehicle used in carrying the specified forest produce.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provisions of Secs. 52 to 52-D of the Forest Act with regard to confiscation are applicable to the specified forest produce as defined under the Trade Act and the Vehicle used in carrying the specified forest produce. The Court held that Sec. 32 of the Trade Act does not bar the initiation and continuance of confiscation proceeding under the Forest Act by the authorised officer with regard to specified forest produce as defined under the Trade Act as well as vehicles etc. used for transporting the same provided the specified forest produce is a forest produce under the Act and offences under the Forest Act have been committed. The Court held that the Forest Act covers wider field and the Trade Act has limited operation. The act and omission may constitute an offence under both the Acts but on that ground the Forest Act may not be held to be in applicable. Its applicability is excluded in term of Sec. 32 of the Trade Act only with regard to matters for which provision has been made under the Trade Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed all the applications filed by the petitioners for release of the vehicles and directed the concerned forest officer to dispose of the confiscation proceeding within a period of two months from the date of receipt production of a copy of the order.
Nagendra Rai, J.
1. All these matters are connected matters and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order at the stage of admission itself.
2. In all the cases the petitioners have filed the application for the release of their vehicles, which have been admittedly seized either by the police officials or by the forest authorities in exercise of power under Sec. 52 of Indian Forest Act as amended by Bihar (Amendment) Act, 1989 (Bihar Act 9/90) (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Amendment Act) for illegal transportation of Katha (Catechu) and Khair wood in contravention of provisions of the Indian Forest Act as well as for quashing the confiscation proceeding pending before the authorised officer under the Act.
3. In Cr. W.J.C. No. 567/94, the petitioner states that the owners of the vehicle bearing No. W.B.I. 6184 are Tabrej Ahmed and Mustaffa Hussain and in terms of agreement dated 3.1.1994 the owners have given him the vehicle on hire on monthly payment of Rs. 5,500.00 . According to the allegation the Range Officer Simariya at about 7.00 A.M. on 20.1.1994 searched the vehicle in question and seized 160 Kgs. Katha biscuits. Nobody was present near the truck and no valid papers were there with regard to carrying out the Katha biscuits and as such the truck and the Katha biscuits were seized on the ground that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Secs. 33, 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act as amended by Bihar Amendment Act and under Sec. 379, 411, 412, 413, 414, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Range Officer submitted a report to the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra about the said fact and. further stated that a detail report for the prosecution will be submitted. The confiscation proceeding being Confiscation case No. 5/94 was also initiated by the authorised forest officer in terms of the provisions of the Forest Act as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act and in which notice has been issued to the petitioner to show cause.
4. In Cr. W.J.C. No. 582/94 the petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the truck bearing No. BHB 6555 which has been seized by the Range Officer, Rajhandi on 24.8.1994 at 11.00 A.M. While he alongwith other members was on patrolling duty he saw the truck in question going away speedly towards Chauparan on the Bhankar-Kamba road. He got the truck stopped. Two persons, namely, driver and Khalasi were apprehended but the owner, namely the petitioner managed to run away. On search one tone of Khair wood and also Katha biscuits kept in a box inside the truck were found. The truck, Khair wood and Katha biscuits were seized and two persons were apprehended and after preparing the seizure list the Range Officer made a report to the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kodarma about the aforesaid fact with further statement that a detail report will be submitted after enquiry. It further appears that confiscation proceeding being Confiscation Case No. 56/94 has been initiated by the authorised Forest Officer, Kodarma and information of the same has been given to the Court on 26.8.1994. The petitioner filed an application before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate for release of the vehicle which was rejected on 6.9.1993 on the ground that as the confiscation proceeding under Sec. 52 of the Indian Forest Act as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act is pending -hence the application is not maintainable.
5. In Cr. W.J.C. No. 693/94 the petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the truck bearing registration No. HR-26-4966 which was seized by Gopal handra, Forest Officer of Gajendi on 11.10.1994. In course of patrolling at Ranchi-Patna High Way, the forest officer noticed a truck going away with high speed. He followed the truck and intercepted it. The occupants of the truck attempted to run away but two of them were apprehended. Khair wood was found on the truck but no papers were produced and on the other hand they stated that th
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
