Point of Law : Since the petitioner could not show any document to prove prima facie ownership of the seized timbers, the zimma petition is rejected."

JUDGMENT :

Legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 21.01.2021, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) is challenged in this revision petition by the petitioner, M/s North East Explo chemicals, a partnership firm, having its office at Umskun, Pahamrioh, Ri-Bhoi-District, Meghalaya, having its branch office at Poddar complex, Narangi, Forest Gate, Guwahati, represented by its partner Smt Kanchan Poddar, of Narangi.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under :-

“Acting on a tip off about keeping stolen timbers in the office premises of Shri Ajay Poddar, atlas COPCO situated at Narangi Forest Gate, Sub Inspector (S.I.) Shri Bipul Chandra Kalita of Noonmati Police Station, on 27.07.2018 at about 4.00 PM, rushed to the office premises of Shri Ajay Poddar and found one Truck No. AS-01-BC-9785 loaded with teak timbers and also found the driver has already fled away from the campus, and the security personnel available there could not produce any documents in respect of the said vehicle. The S.I. also found another vehicle bearing registration No. AS-11-AC-7886, loaded with teak timbers and on asking the security personal reported that the driver of the vehicle fled away. Accordingly the SI had seized both the Truck along with the timbers and taken to the Police Station. On 28.07.2018 both the vehicles were examined by the forest official who have identified the timbers as Teak Sawn Timber, total 265 pieces approximately 130 CFT found in the explosive Van No. AS-01-BC-9785, and 370 pieces approximately 150 CFT Sawn Timbers from the explosive Van No. AS-11-AC-7886, and it was revealed during the investigation that Shri Ajay Poddar along with explosive van drivers have stolen the teak timbers from Meghalaya’s side and illegally running their business and committed cheating on Govt. revenue. Thereafter SI Bipul Chandra Kalita has lodged one formal FIR on 28.07.2018, upon which Noomati P.S Case No. 438/2018, under Section 379/420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 41 of Assam Forest Regulation Act, 1891 has been registered and investigated upon. The investigation culminated in submission of charge sheet against accused Shri Ajay Poddar and Shri Sanjay Agarwal under Section 41 of Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup for trial. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a petition before the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup seeking custody of the seized timbers. Then hearing both the parties the learned Addl. C.J.M has rejected the petition. Being highly aggrieved by the said rejection order the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition.

3. I have heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State of Assam.

4. Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner is the partner of M/s North East Explo Chemicals, a Partnership Firm, having its office at Umskun Pahamrioh of Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya and that the petitioner is the lawful owner of 260 piece approximately 130 CFT Teak Sawn Timbers which were seized from the explosive Van bearing registration No. AS-01-BC-9785 and 370 pieces, approximately 150 CFT Teak Sawn Timbers, seized from explosive van bearing registration No. AS-11-AC-7886. Mr. Agarwal submits that and the timbers were swan from the trees fallen by miscreants in the lease land of the petitioner comprising of 123 Acres, which the petitioner has taken from one Shri Swel Khongkai, pursuant to sanction of the Joint Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Meghalaya and the same were cut with permission from the Range Forest Officer, Nangpoh of Meghalaya. Mr. Agarwal, further submits that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai-Vs-State of Gujarat