Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 187
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
State Of Gujarat & others – Appellants
Versus
Ashokbhai Jasubhai Patel – Respondent
R/Special Criminal Application (Possession Of Muddamal) No. 10119 of 2017
Decided on : 05-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL
For the Respondent: MR JV JAPEE
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient, trustworthy, and reliable evidence to hold an alleged forest offence, as per the provisions of the Indian Forest Act.
Headnote:
Confiscation - Indian Forest Act - 52, 53, 55, 61A, 61B, 61D - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, particularly Sections 52, 53, 55, 61A, 61B, and 61D, which deal with the seizure of property, release of seized property, liability to confiscation, confiscation by forest officers, issue of show-cause notice before confiscation, and appeal. The court found that the statements relied upon were mostly based on hearsay evidence and extracted by forest officials by coercive methods. It concluded that there was no sufficient, trustworthy, and reliable evidence to hold the alleged forest offence against the respondent, and the impugned judgment was in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The State applied for the confiscation of a JCB machine released by the Sessions Court, which was seized and ordered for confiscation by the Authority. The State argued that the trial Court erred in not considering the provisions of the Indian Forest Act and the seriousness of the damage caused by the JCB machine. The respondent's advocate highlighted that the District Court had given detailed reasons for allowing the appeal and that no error of law was committed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned District Court had not committed an error and that the impugned judgment was in accordance with the law. It dismissed the application and allowed the respondent to approach the concerned department for the return of the bank guarantee.
Issues: The issues revolved around the consideration of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, the reliability of the evidence, and the correctness of the impugned judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the statements relied upon were mostly based on hearsay evidence and extracted by forest officials by coercive methods. It concluded that there was no sufficient, trustworthy, and reliable evidence to hold the alleged forest offence against the respondent.
Final Decision: The application for confiscation was dismissed, and the respondent was allowed to approach the concerned department for the return of the bank guarantee.
ORDER :
1. This is an application by the State for confiscation of the muddamal – JCB Machine bearing registration No.GJ-09-AF-139, which is released by the learned Sessions Court, Himmatnagar vide order dated 30.08.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2009, which was seized and ordered of confiscation by the Authority vide order dated 30.04.2009.
2. Heard learned APP Mr.Dhawan Jaiswal for the applicant – State and Mr.J.V. Japee, learned advocate for the respondent.
3. Mr.Jaiswal, learned APP has submitted that the learned District Court has committed an error of law by not considering the provisions of Sections 52, 53, 55 and 61 of the Indian Forest Act. He has further submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have considered the seriousness of the damage caused with the help of the confiscating the JCB Machine. The two acres is the huge land which was levelled and destroyed with the help of the JCB machine which is owned by the respondent. He has submitted that the learned trial Court has committed gross error in not properly considering the material available on the record, more particularly, the statements of about eleven witnesses who supported the case that the respondent is carrying out illegal activities with the help of JCB machine. He has submitted that this application may be allowed by quashing the impugned order.
4. Mr. Japee, learned advocate for the respondent has drawn my attention to the fact that on earlier round of litigation, the order of confiscation is challenged before the learned District Court, Himmatnagar, the District Court has allowed the matter and it was challenged before this Court, this Court has remanded the matter back to the District Court and the learned District Court has allowed the appeal of the respondent and assigned detailed reasons. He has also drawn my attention towards the paragraphs 15 to 19 of the impugned judgment which are reproduced as under :
“15. Considering rival contentions of both the sides, in the light of impugned order of the confiscation of JCB Machine passed by the competent authority and record and proceedings as well as the statement recorded by the Police Sub Inspector, Vijaynagar in connection of complaint filed by the employee of appellant, it can certainly be said that the alleged offence under the Forest Act had not been witnessed by anybody. The competent authority has relied on the statement of one alleged independent witness, Shankarbhai Jeshabhai Khokhariya, resident of Tandaliya, Tal.Khedbrahmma dated 09.03.2009 (Exh.319), statement of K.S. Thakore, Vanpal, Antarsumba (Exh.323), Valjibhai Jagaji Damor, Vanrakshak (Exh.325), B.R. Pandav, R.F.O. (Exh.329), R.M. Desai, Assistant Conservator of Forest (Exh.335), Khant Babubhai Nathabhai, resident of Chikhala, employee of the Appellant, Ashokbhai (Exh.249), Chauhan Pravinsinh Ramsinh, resident of Umari, Tal.Satalasana, operator/driver of JCB Machine an employee of appellant (Exh.255), Ashokbhai Jashubhai Patel, the appellant, owner of JCB Machine (Exh.267), Krunalbhai Kaushikbhai Patel, Principal Investigator, Research Wing, Gandhinagar (Exh.279), Somaji Viraji Makwana (Exh.287) and Kadvaji Udaraji Bhagora, resident of Antari (Exh.289). So, the competent authority has relied on so-called statement of the aforesaid witnesses and appellant as well as his employees. Out of them most of the witnesses are employees of Forest and only one independent witness is Shankarbhai Jeshabhai Khokhariya.
16. While going through the said statements, it can be said that the said statements are mostly based on the hearsay evidence and as per the contention of the appellant most of the statements are extracted by the Forest Officials by coercive method and by criminal force. On the basis of the complaint made by the employee of the appellant, their statements have been extracted by the Forest Officials by keeping them in wrongful confinement for 02 days and after using criminal force and beating them, due to their criminal force, they
