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 matter would perpetuate commission of more offence with respect to the forest and its produce which, if not prevented is bound to affect mother earth and atmosphere surrounding it.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. I. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Forest Department.

2. In this petition, under Section 397/401/482 read with Section 451 Cr.P.C., the petitioner - Shri Deep Kumar, has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Silchar in Misc. Appeal No.11/2020 and also the impugned order dated 14.01.2020, passed in O.R. No. LP/4 of 2019-20, DH/4 of 2019-20, DVL 51 of 2019-20 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar, Silchar, whereby the Authorized Officer has confiscated the vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-74T-6001 belonging to the petitioner.

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

“On 18.09.2018, at about 5.00 A.M. Shri Sachin Rajkumar, Fr-1, Beat Officer, Lailapur Beat has signaled one vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-74T-6001, on NH-54 at Dholai to stop and but the driver fled away with the vehicle from there. The Beat Officer then chased the vehicle and found the same parked at Nagatilla BRTF Camp, Silchar-Aizwal road, but, found the driver already fled away leaving the vehicle there. On search, the Beat Officer had found the Truck loaded with Teak sawn timbers without hammer impression. Then, he took the vehicle to the Office of the Range Forest Officer for further investigation and the timbers were unloaded from the vehicle and after measurement the volume of the timbers were found to be 22.373m3 (A-1 Teak Sawn Timber=144 Pcs.) and seized the same preparing seizure list. Then, the matter was reported to Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar, Division with a copy to the DTO, Cachar vide letter No. LP/8/O.R/37-40, dated 18.09.2019 and thereafter, the matter was circulated in the local newspaper. Thereafter, one person namely, Shri Deep Kumar, from Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh appeared at the Range Office, Dholai and produced documents of the vehicle and then the Beat Officer asked him to produce the legal documents of carrying the forest produce within 30 days. Then Mr. Deep Kumar, owner of the vehicle stated that the vehicle was sent from Farukabad (UP) to Aizwal with potatoes on 08.09.2019, and while returning from Aizwal, the driver had loaded the vehicle with sawn timbers without informing him, while returning back towards Silchar and he was totally unaware of the incident and he is not the owner of the seized timber and therefore, he had requested to release the vehicle. Thereafter, observing necessary formalities, the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar vide order dated 14.01.2020, confiscated the vehicle to the department under Section 49(4) of the Assam Frontier Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1995.

Then being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar challenging the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar by filing the Misc. Appeal No.11/2020. Then, after hearing both the parties the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 07.03.2022, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant had failed to make any attempt to prove or satisfy that the seized vehicle was used in commission of the offence without his knowledge or connivance or abetment and as such, confiscation of the seized vehicle is arbitrary in nature and as such, the impugned order cannot be faulted with.”

4. Being highly dissatisfied and aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order, the petitioner Shri Deep Kumar approached this Court, on the ground as follows:-

I. That, the petitioner was totally unaware of the incident and he had requested to release the vehicle but, it was illegally confiscated vide order dated 14.01.2020;

II. That, the respondent No.2 had whimsically came to the finding that the petitioner did not ex