Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Sahun S/o. Sh. Jameel Khan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No. 5472 of 2022
Decided On : 27-09-2022
Section 482 - Confiscation of Vehicle - Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, Section 41, 42, 52, 52A, 52B, 52C, 55 - The court discussed the provisions of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, particularly focusing on the power of confiscation, appeal, and revision against the order of confiscation. The court emphasized the requirement of knowledge or connivance for confiscation and the limitations on the court's power under section 52B(5) of the Act. The judgment highlights the court's use of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code to correct the error of law and set aside the illegal confiscation.
Fact of the Case:
The police seized a truck carrying Khair wood illegally, leading to the initiation of confiscation proceedings. The owner and driver claimed ignorance of the illegal nature of the wood transportation. The Authorised Officer ordered confiscation, which was upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities. The petitioner challenged the order of confiscation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confiscation was illegal as it was done without the knowledge or connivance of the owner/driver and set aside the order of confiscation and corresponding appellate and revisional orders.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the confiscation order under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and the court's jurisdiction to intervene using inherent powers under section 482 of the Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the confiscation without the knowledge or connivance of the owner/driver was fundamentally void and manifestly illegal. It emphasized the limitations on the court's power under section 52B(5) of the Act and used inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code to set aside the illegal confiscation.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of confiscation and corresponding appellate and revisional orders, disposing of the present petition and stay petition accordingly.
ORDER :
1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) the petitioner has challenged order dated 29.04.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’), passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Revisional Authority’) whereby, the order dated 08.03.2022, passed by the Divisional Chief Conservator of Forest, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Authority’), dismissing petitioner’s appeal against the order of confiscation dated 29.11.2021 passed by learned Assistant Conservator of Forest, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Authorised Officer’) has been upheld.
2. Precisely narrated the facts appertain are that on 29.04.2021, at or around 8:15 am, the Police Authority was informed that a truck bearing number RJ-14-GG-7655 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Confiscated Truck’) is carrying Khair wood illetally from Kherwada to Udaipur. Accordingly, the Police intercepted and seized the truck which was being driven by one Shabbir S/o Bashir Khan. An FIR bearing number 70/2021 dated 29.04.2021, alleging offences under sections 41 and 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1953’) and section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) came to be registered.
3. On receipt of information about said FIR, a case bearing no. 09/2021 came to be registered by the Authorised Officer for taking up proceedings of confiscation of the truck and goods. The learned Special Additional Judge and Judicial Magistrate (P.C.P.N.D.T.) Sarada, Udaipur was sent an intimation vide letter No.115 dated 25.08.2021 about initiation of confiscation proceedings.
4. In the proceedings for confiscation, the accused and driver of the Confiscated Truck, deposed that while he was having his food at a Dhaba on Gujarat-Rajasthan Border, a man approached him and requested to transport timber to Haryana from his field for transportation charges of Rs.70,000/-. He informed that he was totally unaware of the nature of wood/timber and that it required a license to transport the same.
5. The driver admitted his fault of carrying the timber without the requisite license but not of offences under the Act of 1953. The owner of the Confiscated Truck stated that he was unaware that the transportation of the Khair wood was illegal and came to know of the alleged crime, when the police seized the truck.
6. The Authorised Officer however, passed an order for confiscation of the vehicle noting therein that though the Confiscated Truck was used for commission of offences under sections 41 and 42 of the Act of 1953, but the same was without the knowledge or connivance of the registered owner of the vehicle. Notwithstanding such conclusion, the seized timber and the subject vehicle carrying it came to be confiscated by way of order dated 29.11.2021. The reason for such confiscation as indicated in the order dated 29.11.2021 was, that number of commission of such offences are increasing and such illegal transportation/trade of wood is adversely affecting environment.
7. The registered owner of the vehicle preferred an appeal before the Chief Conservator of Forest - the Appellate Authority which dismissed the appeal the Authorised Officer. Against the order of the Appellate Authority a revision under Section 52 B of the Act of 1953 was preferred before the Revisional Authority, which too dismissed the revision petition holding that no error of law has been pointed out by the petitioner and that the factual submissions made before the Revisional Authority are to be scrutinised by the Court in the main case.
8. Hence, the present petition.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order for confiscation has been passed without conclusion of the trial of the offence or conviction of the accused, hence, the same be set aside.
10. Per contra, learne
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's use of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code to correct the error of law and set aside the illegal confiscation under the....
Confiscation of forest produce is discretionary and must consider circumstances affecting its necessity.
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....
The necessity of complying with mandatory provisions before confiscating property under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and the prohibition of confiscation if the owner proves lack of knowledge or co....
Confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act bar any court from intervening in property release prior to completion of proceedings, affirming jurisdiction is constrained under specific statut....
Point of Law : Section 15 gives independent power to the authority concerned, but confiscation of the article as mentioned there under, even before the guilt is completely established.
The court emphasized the necessity of establishing the involvement in a forest offence before passing an order of confiscation under the Indian Forest Act.
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
