IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
DEVENDRA KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE BISHNUDEB YADAV – Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR- Respondent
Crl.Rev.P./174/2022
Decided on : 30.08.2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Sections 401/397/482 - Assam Forest Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1995 - Section 49(4) - Truck - Logs - Seized - Staff of Beat and Assam Forest Protection Force personnel, while performing patrolling duty area on NH- 54, found one Truck bearing Registration No. NL-01K-5990, coming from Mizoram and checked same and found driver carrying teak logs without proper mark and with doubtful T.P. being No., dated - Truck was taken to Range Forest Office, and on verification and unloading Truck, 125 Nos. of teak logs were found there and as per T.P., it was 180 Nos. and with major discrepancy in measurement of length and girth of logs - Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, issued Form No. 31(B) and in his reply he stated that one person of Mizoram called him and talked to him over phone and asked him for transportation of teak logs from Mizoram after proper verification and measurement along with up-to-date T.P. and GST, to which, he agreed and transported same in his vehicle giving permission to his driver - But, during transportation, same was intercepted by forest officials - He also stated that he was completely unaware about forest rules and regulations and he promised not to repeat such offence in future and requested to release vehicle on payment of compensation, fine etc.
Finding of Court :
Court finds that same suffers from no illegality or infirmity, requiring any interference of this Court by exercising its revisional jurisdiction - Also, Court have carefully gone through case laws, referred by learned counsel for petitioner and Court find that above mentioned ratio are laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and in instant case, jurisdiction being exercised by this court is revisional jurisdiction, under Sections 401/397/482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is only limited to examination of legality, propriety and correctness of impugned order and as such, Court afraid ratio laid down in aforesaid cases would come into aid of petitioner - In view of above, Court find submission so advanced by Mr. I. Hoque, learned counsel for petitioner is devoid of any substance - As vehicle has already been confiscated, question of releasing same in interim custody does not arise at this stage.
Result: Court find no merit in this criminal revision petition and accordingly, same stands dismissed.
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., preferred by the petitioner Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav, has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Silchar in Misc. Appeal No.12/2020, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cachar has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, and also the impugned order dated 17.01.2020, passed in O.R. No. DH/5 of 2018-20, DVL 64 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. NL-01K-5990, belonging to the petitioner.
3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:-
Abu Bakkar Ali (Md.) Vs. State of Assam & Ors.
Jogeswar Borah Vs. State of Assam & Ors.
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Uday Singh
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....
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 the party till culmination of all proceedings in respect of forest offence as particular approach in....
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....
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....
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 court emphasized that the failure to exercise jurisdiction under section 49A of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, based on a non-existent fact of initiation of confiscation proceedings amounted ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.