Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
DEEP KUMAR S/O MAHESWAR DAYAL – Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR – Respondent
Crl.Rev.P./168/2022
Decided on : 30-08-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397/401/482 read with Section 451 - Assam Forest Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1995 - Section 49(4) - Vehicle - Timbers - Seized - At about 5.00 AM, Fr-I, Beat Officer, Beat, signaled one vehicle, bearing Registration No. to stop NH-54 for checking, but driver drove away vehicle - Beat Officer, after prolonged chase, found vehicle parked at petrol pump, road, but driver of vehicle fled away leaving vehicle abandoned - On searched, said vehicle was found loaded with teak sawn timbers without any hammer impression mark - Vehicle and forest produce was brought to Range Officer, where sawn timbers (145 Nos.) were verified and seized - Beat Officer issued Form No. 31(A), vide letter dated , asking him to produce legal proof of origin of forest produce within 30 days - Then Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Division , issued Form No. 31(B) to Power of Attorney holder of vehicle and in his reply, stated that he sent vehicle, loaded with potatoes, from Farukabad (UP) to Aizwal and while returning from Aizwal, driver of vehicle loaded sawn timbers without informing him and later on, it was seized by forest official.
Finding of Court :
Vehicle seized for committing forest offence was not normally to be released to the party till culmination of all proceedings in respect of the forest offence as the particular approach in matter would perpetuate commission of more offence with respect to the forest and its produce which, if not prevented is bound to affect the mother earth and atmosphere surrounding it - There is no doubt that forest offence is committed by petitioner and a case is pending against him before Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar - Authorized Officer was fully justified in passing order of confiscation of seized vehicle, bearing Registration No. and therefore, dismissed appeal - Impugned order of Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer , Division, Silchar and impugned judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Court find that same suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this Court.
Result : Petition stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated 07.03.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, at Cachar, Silchar, in Misc. Appeal No. 2/2021, and also the order dated 14.01.2020, passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, Silchar, in O.R. No. LP/5 of 2019-20, DVL 63 of 2019-20, are impugned in this revision petition under Sections 397/401/482 read with Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 14.01.2020, passed in O.R. No. LP/5 of 2019-20, DVL 63 of 2019-20, the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, Silchar, confiscated the vehicle of the petitioner, bearing Registration No. UP-74T-5134, to the department, and vide impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2022, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 2/2021, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, at Cachar, Silchar, has affirmed the order of the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, Silchar, dated 17.01.2020.
3. The factual background, leading to filing of this petition, is briefly stated as under:
Point of law : 14. Vehicle seized for committing forest offence was not normally to be released to the party till culmination of all proceedings in respect of forest offence as particular approach in....
Point of Law : 19. Vehicle seized for committing forest offence was not normally to be released to party till culmination of all proceedings in respect of forest offence as particular approach in mat....
Point of Law : 18. Vehicle seized for committing forest offence was not normally to be released to party till culmination of all proceedings in respect of forest offence as particular approach in mat....
Point of Law : 14. Vehicle seized for committing forest offence was not normally to be released to party till culmination of all proceedings in respect of forest offence as particular approach in mat....
The main legal point established is that the owner of a vehicle used in a forest offence may not be held responsible if they can prove lack of knowledge or connivance, as per Section 49(6) of the AFR....
Confiscation under the Orissa Forest Act requires proof of a forest offence and adherence to procedural safeguards, failure of which invalidates the confiscation order.
The petitioner failed to establish that his vehicle was used without his knowledge, as required by Section 56(2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, demonstrating insufficient proof of diligence agains....
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 off....
Administrative property seizure is a temporary measure pending criminal conviction. Excessive, unexplained delay in investigation violates the constitutional right to a speedy trial, justifying the q....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
