THE CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY UNDER THE FOREST ACT SHOULD BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE OFFENCE COMMITTED AND THE AUTHORISED OFFICER MUST EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION PROPERLY.

Gorachand De, J.

By this application under sections 401/482 Cr. P. C. the present petitioner has prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.2.97 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri, sitting in appeal under section 590 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by West Bengal Amendment (XXII) Act, 1988. By the said order the learned Additional Distract Judge while confirmed the order of the Authorised Officer of Cooch Behar Forest Division in Forest Case No. 23/COB/93-94 came to a finding that the order of confiscation of the vehicle, which was carrying un-authorised forest articles, was correctly made.

2. On the allegation of carrying 48 pieces of freshly cut Khair logs on 13.12.93 at about 2.20 A.M. by the truck bearing Registration No. WB-63/0022 without any legal sanction the articles with the truck were seized by the forest personnel, the proceeding was started, notices as regards confiscation of the vehicle were issued to the registered owner of the truck, and after hearing, the authorised Forest Officer came to a finding that those 48 pieces of freshly cut Khair logs were illegally removed from the Government Forest of West Bengal by the said truck bearing No. WB-63/0022 and thereby committed forest offence under section 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 along with the rules made thereunder and also under sub-section (3) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and thereafter, he passed an order of confiscation of the seized timbers as well as the truck. In the said order, the authorised officer also directed the Range Officer, Madarihat Range to take charge of the seized timbers and the truck and thereafter to sell them in public auction after the statutory period of appeal is over.

3. Against the said order, the present petitioner being the registered owner of the truck moved the District Judge, Jalpaiguri in appeal and Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 1994 was registered and it was transferred to the court at the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri for final disposal. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing both sides and on perusal of the materials on records confirmed the order passed by the authorised officer and dismissed the appeal in the manner indicated hereinabove.

4. By the present application, the present petitioner has challenged the said order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalpaiguri and contended that neither the authorised officer nor the learned Additional District Judge took into consideration that for committing forest offence, involving property of worth Rs. 40,000/-, the full truck valued few lacs was directed to be confiscated and sold it in public auction. It is also contended that the reason of confiscation of the entire truck has not been clarified in the order passed by the authorised officer or by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalpaiguri.

5. Mr. De, learned counsel for the petitioner however, placed reliance of a Division Bench's judgement of Orissa High Court in the case of Gurudev Singh Rai vs. Authorised Officer, reported in AIR 1992 Orissa 287, in support of his contention that the High Court has power to supplement words in statutory provision in appropriate cases and as such for commission of forest offence in respect of goods worth Rs. 40,000/-, it was incumbent upon the authorised officer or the appellate court to cofiscate the appropriate amount without confiscating the value of the entire truck. Accordingly, it is argued that for value of confiscated goods worth Rs. 40,000/-, this court is competent to pass an order of fine on Rs. 40,000/- and it would be just and proper for ends of justice.

6. Mr. De, also placed his reliance on a Single Bench judgment of this court in the case of Nazami Nissa vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2001) 1 Cal. L.T. 442 (H.C) and contended that it would be proper to fine Rs. 40,000/- being the value of the goods for giving an opportunity t