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 connivance in the use of the property for the offence.

JUDGMENT

1. A brief background to this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is that FIR No.72/2016 (wrongly typed in the FIR as 72/2006) was registered against accused Ayyub, Aadil, Aasif, Gheesu and Nishar with Police Station Kaman in the District of Bharatpur for violation of provisions of Section 30, 32 and 33 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act of 1953’) having allegations that the accused persons were found cutting the green trees in the forest area and were making way for movement of the vehicle. An L.N.T.(Poklen) machine model No. E.C. 210 B without registration number was also seized alleging the vehicle was being used for commission of the offences under the Act of 1953. The occurrence was allegedly committed in the intervening night of 23rd October, 2015.

2. By order dated 9.3.2016, the competent authority decided to confiscate the said vehicle. The petitioner claiming ownership on the said vehicle challenged the order of confiscation under Section 52A of the Act of 1953 before the appellate authority in Appeal No. 15/2016. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 28.6.2016 and the order of confiscation was confirmed. The appellate court directed that the confiscation will be subject to the result of trial of the accused. The petitioner challenged the order of the appellate authority before the learned Sessions Judge under Section 52B of the Act of 1953 in Criminal Revision No. 70/2017. The Criminal Revision was dismissed on 8.11.2017 as barred by limitation, thereafter the petitioner approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 6180/2017 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.4.2018 with liberty to the petitioner to pursue alternative legal recourse according to law. Hence this petition.

3. The challenge to the order of the competent authority is on the ground that it suffers from non compliance of the mandates of law. The appellate authority did not consider the non compliance of mandate of law and the revisional authority dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition on technical ground. Since the issue raised is non compliance of mandatory requirements of Section 52 of the Act of 1953, the said provision is being reproduced below in toto:

"52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure therefore: - (1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce, together with all machinery, arms, tools, boats, cattle, vehicle, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing any such offence, may be seized by any Forest Officer or a Police Officer not below the rank of a head constable.

(2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as the authorised officer) or where it is, having regard to quantity or bulk or other genuine difficulty, not practicable to produce property seized before the authorised officer, make a report about the seizure to the authorised officer, or where it is intended to launch criminal proceedings against the offender immediately, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made:

Provided that, when the forest produce with respect to which such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of State Government and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to his official superior.

(3) subject lo sub-section (5), where the authorised officer upon production before, him of property seized or upon receipt of report ab