1999 Supreme(Gau) 175
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
N.C.Jain, J.
Nathuni Singh -Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner -Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 338 of 1991
Decided On : 21-05-1999
R.T.Phukan , J.M.Choudhary, B.Banerjee
Section 51 of the Assam Forest Regulation allows confiscation of a truck used in the commission of a forest offence only if the owner is convicted of a forest offence.
Headnote:
Confiscation - Forest Offence - Interpretation of Section 51 of Assam Forest Regulation 1891
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that a truck was caught with logs from a reserve forest, and the owner of the truck was summoned at a later stage. The trial court found the driver guilty but acquitted the owner. The Deputy Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the truck under section 51 of the Assam Forest Regulation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confiscation of the truck belonging to the acquitted owner was not justified under section 51 of the Assam Forest Regulation.
Issues: The issue was whether the confiscation of the truck belonging to the acquitted owner was lawful under section 51 of the Assam Forest Regulation.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 51 of the Assam Forest Regulation allows confiscation of a truck used in the commission of a forest offence only if the owner is convicted of a forest offence. Since the owner was acquitted, section 51 could not be invoked for confiscation.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the order of the Deputy Commissioner pertaining to the petitioner was set aside.
2. The learned trial Court after trial found only Surendra Kumar Das guilty of the offences under section 25, 40/41 of the Assam Forest Regulation. The petitioner has admittedly not been found guilty of any offence whatsoever. He has been acquitted primarily on the ground that there was no direct involvement proved against him. However, the learned Deputy Commissidner while invoking the provision of section 51 of Assam Forest Regulation ordered the confiscation of the truck belonging to the petitioner to the State. It was ordered that the truck be auctioned.
3. The counsel for the petitioner, Mr. JM Choudhury, Senior Advocate has argued that once the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge, his truck could not be confiscated. The argument has got force and deserves to be accepted. A bare reading of section 51 of the Assam Forest Regulation 1891 makes it clear that the convicting Court could order the confiscation of the truck used in the commission of the offence on finding owner guilty. The word any 'person' if convicted of a forest offence clearly envisages that section 51 would come into play only if a 'person' is convicted of forest offence. If the petitioner had been convicted of any forest offence only then section 51 could, be resorted to for ordering confiscation. Section 51 in view of the innocence of the petitioner could not be invoked by the learned Deputy Commissioner. This is the only interpretation which can be given to section 51.
4. For the reasons recorded above the revision petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, in so far as it pertains the petitioner, is hereby set aside.