Back
1994 Supreme(Guj) 272
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :C.V.Jani
STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant
Versus
SHANTILAL MANSUKHLAL MISTRY - Respondent
S.CRI.A. 113 of 1988
Decided On : 09/26/1994
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226 and 227 – Power of Forest Officer – Confiscation of vehicle – Whether the Sessions Judge has power to modify the order passed by the Forest Officer for confiscation of the vehicle in which some forest produce belonging to a third party was being transported without pass or permit – Hence these four petitions are being heard and decided together by consent – Order by imposing a penalty on the owner of the vehicle in order that he may retain the custody of the vehicle. Teak wood worth Rs. 4,000. 00 was found to be carried in matadoor Tempo by the Forest Officer on 8-5-1985. The forest produce no doubt came to be confiscated, but so far as the owner of the vehicle was concerned, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests would be unduly harsh and unjust and that imposition of penalty would serve the ends of justice in view of the valuation of the Tempo – Held, The authorised officer is not under compulsion to confiscate the vehicle or the goods but he will take into consideration all the relevant facts like value of the forest produce as well as the vehicle and the background and the mode in which the offence was committed – That is why the Sessions Judge is empowered under Sec. 61d to confirm, modify or annul the order of the authorised officer. If confiscation by the authorised officer is compulsory under the relevant provisions of law, no appeal would be provided against such an order. Thus, the latitude given to the authorised officer is subject to the appeal before the judicial court which would have a similar latitude in examining all the relevant facts, and in confirming or modifying or annulling the order of the authorised officer. That is really the essence of the appellate jurisdiction – As this is the only point of law urged in these four petitions it is held that the orders passed by the appellate Judges in these four matters do not suffer from any apparent error of law and this Court would not be inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction by interfering with minute insignificant details of the appellate order – IT appears that the respondent owner of the vehicle might have taken custody of the vehicle after furnishing an undertaking to the court, but there is nothing on record to show that he has paid the penalty imposed by the appellate Court – If that is so, it is ordered that the respondent will comply with the order of the appellate Judge within one month after the receipt of the writ of this Court in order to earn the benefit of the appellate order as confirmed by this Court – Petitions are rejected.
( 1 ) THE only question agitated in these four petitions filed by the State of Gujarat and the Deputy Conservator of Forests of local division under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is whether the Sessions Judge has power to modify the order passed by the Forest Officer for confiscation of the vehicle in which some forest produce belonging to a third party was being transported without pass or permit. Hence, these four petitions are being heard and decided together by consent.
( 2 ) SPL. Cri. Appln. No. 113 of 1988 arises from the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals, at Godhra, in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1987, filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle, whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to set aside the order for confiscation passed by Shri Dinesh Mishra, Deputy conservator of Forests, Devgadh Baria, and substitute the said order by imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000. 00 on the owner of the vehicle in order that he may retain the custody of the vehicle. Teak wood worth Rs. 4,000. 00 was found to be carried in matadoor Tempo GRQ No. 8060 by the Forest Officer on 8-5-1985. The forest produce no doubt came to be confiscated, but so far as the owner of the vehicle was concerned, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests would be unduly harsh and unjust and that imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000. 00 would serve the ends of justice in view of the valuation of the Tempo at Rs. 75,000. 00.
( 3 ) IN Spl. Cri. Application No. 635 of 1988 the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchmahals, at Godhra, in Criminal Appeal No, 21 of 1986 has come under challenge. Shri A. L. E. Sheikh, Deputy Conservator of Forests, devgadh Baria, had passed an order for confiscation not only of teak wood but also the truck in which it was being carried on 26-11-1985. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after examining the relevant provisions of law, set aside the order of confiscation of the truck and substituted it by imposing the penalty of Rs. 25,000. 00 in view of the fact that the Teak wood found in the truck was valued at rs. 7,273/- only, by the Range Forest Officer.
( 4 ) IN Special Criminal Appl. No. 876 of 1988 the appellate order passed by shri A. M. Kapadia, Joint District Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchmahals, at Godhra, in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1988 has come under challenge. Nine pieces of Teak wood valued at Rs. 462. 00 were found to be carried in a truck on 11-1-1987 without the requisite pass or permit. Shri Dinesh Mishra, Deputy conservator of Forests, Devgadh Baria, passed an order for confiscating the Teak wood as well as the truck. The owner of the vehicle challenged the order of confiscation of the truck by filing Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1988 in the Sessions court at Panchmahals, at Godhra. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after considering the relevant facts, set aside the order of confiscation of the truck and substituted it by imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000. 00 in order to continue the custody of the truck.
( 5 ) IN Special Criminal Appl. No. 888 of 1988, the petitioners have challenged the order of Shri N. L. Solanki, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchmahals, at godhra, in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1986. Some fire-wood and teak wood was found by the Range Forest Officer in the offending truck which was valued at Rs. 1820. 00 on 24-5-1985. Shri A. L. E. Sheikh, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Devgadh Baria, passed an order of confiscation of the wood as well as the vehicle. This order came to be set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, by substituting it by an order of imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000. 00 so far as the truck was concerned.
( 6 ) THESE four orders are being challenged in these four petitions.
( 7 ) SHRI S. T. Mehta, and Shri M. A. Bukhari, learned A. P. P. appearing for the petitioners in these different petitions, urged that under Sec. 26 (1) (g) of the indian
