Point of Law: When there is reason to believe that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of any forest-produce, such produce together with all tools, boats, carts or cattle used in committing any such offence, may be seized by any Forest-officer or Police officer.
(2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized, and shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account which the seizure has been made

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Dy. Conservator of Forest (North), Valsad whereby the respondent No.2 vide order dated 27.3.2017 directed that the vehicle being Truck bearing registration no. GJ15XX6519 be vested with the State as per the provisions of Section 61(f) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the decision of the learned Sessions Court Valsad, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The brief facts giving rise to present petition is that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle being Truck bearing registration no. GJ15XX6519 from the respondent no.3 by executing one agreement to the said effect dated 9.9.2016. However, the said Truck was not transferred in the records of RTO in the name of the petitioner. The said vehicle was seized by Respondent no.2 when the same was parked loaded with forest product viz. Khair logs which were illegally cut from the forest. According to Respondent No.2, the First Offence Register i.e. FOR was registered on 8.10.2016 and the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 7.10.2016 and pursuant to the registration of the FOR, the Round Offence No.8 of 201617 was registered and whereafter Dharampur Range Offence No. 49 of 2016 was registered. It is also case of the respondent that pursuant to the registration of the said offence, vehicle in question was taken into custody by the forest authorities and proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle was initiated vide Ka/Offence/Vahan/T8/ 390616/ 201617 before Respondent No.2, who has passed the impugned order.

2.1 The said Order of the Respondent No.2 was then challenged by the Petitioner by filing Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2017 before the Learned District & Sessions Judge, Valsad, who has also confirmed the order passed by respondent no.2.

2.2 It is contended by the petitioner that the Forest authorities as well as learned Sessions Judge, Valsad has committed serious error of facts and law in passing the impugned orders. It is contended that the Sessions Judge ought to have appreciated that the only criteria required to be taken into consideration while releasing the muddamal vehicle is that whether the vehicle was utilised for transportation of forest products or not. It is contended that in the present case, it is not in dispute that the forest produce alleged to have been illegally transported was not a property of the Government and, therefore, the vehicle could not have been confiscated. According to him, the statement of the person, who is occupying the land viz. Amrutbhai Patalbhai was also recorded and he has specifically stated that because of financial difficulty, he had sold the said trees to the petitioner and, therefore, the trees log cannot be said to be Government property as it was purchased from a private man. He has also contended that the Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Forest Act and that opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner as per Section 68 of the Indian Forest Act. He has also contended that pursuant to the seizure of the vehicle in question, no complaint has been made by the Forest Officer before the learned Magistrate and in absence of any such complaint, the order of confiscation is bad. On this grounds, he has sought following relief:

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 9.5.2018 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Valsad in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2017 as well as order dated 27.3.2017 passed by respondent no.2 in proceedings no. Ka/Offence/ Vahan/ T9/ 390616/2016-17 and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to release the vehicle being Truck bearing registration no. GJ15XX6519 in favour of the petitioner, in the interest;

(C) Pending the a