Back
1989 Supreme(HP) 99
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
BHAWANI SINGH
MEENA RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H.P. - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 32 of 1989
Decided On : 06/27/1989
For the petitioner:Shri K. D. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent(s):Shri M. S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for the State. Name of respondent No. 2 has been deleted.
The court has the discretion to order the confiscation of case property even if the accused is acquitted, especially when the property is presumed to belong to the Government under section 69 of the Indian Forest Act.
Headnote:
CONFISCATION OF CASE PROPERTY - SECTION 452 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - DISPOSAL OF CASE PROPERTY - COURT'S DISCRETION - OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INDIAN FOREST ACT - DUTY OF CITIZENS TO PROTECT ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS - ARTICLES 48-A AND 51-A(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was acquitted of charges under sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. However, the trial court ordered the confiscation of the case property to the State of Himachal Pradesh.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court did not err in ordering the confiscation of the case property. The court found that the petitioner had cut trees not only from his private land but also from the Government land and that he had not obtained the necessary permission from the Forest Department. The court also noted that the petitioner had not claimed ownership of the property during the trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in ordering the confiscation of the case property without holding an inquiry under section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the return of the case property despite his acquittal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An order under section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is passed on the termination of the inquiry, trial, or proceedings before a court and does not require an elaborate inquiry. 2. When a property is seized from a person and he is acquitted of the charge, the property should be returned to him, but there are exceptions depending on the circumstances of each case. 3. In the present case, the petitioner had cut trees from Government land without permission and mixed them with trees cut from his own land. He had also transported the timber without a pass or permit from the Forest Department. 4. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the return of the case property as he had not claimed ownership of it during the trial and there was a presumption under section 69 of the Indian Forest Act that the forest produce belonged to the Government.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed.
Bhawani Singh, J. - This Revision Petition under section 497 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (to be referred hereinafter as the Code) arises out of the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Simla, in Criminal Appeal No. 41-S/10 of 1987 decided on 27-1-1989 thereby confirming the order of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Theog, dated 25-11-1986 in case No. 148/1 of 1983. The petitioner has a grievance against this order. Hence this petition.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were prosecuted under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It is alleged that on 19-11-1982, Kedar Singh, Inspector C.I D., was present at Kotkhai in connection with some investigation. He got information that the accused had illicitly felled trees from the Government land A raiding party was formed in which forest as well as revenue officials were associated and the party went to the spot at Jalath Nallah. The land of the accused was demarcated and it was found that 34 trees of Kail and 14 trees of Deodar had been illicitly felled by the accused from their own land and 5 trees of Deodar and Kail were found to have been illicitly felled by the accused from the Government land. During the course of investigation, 86 Karis and planks of Deodar and Kail were taken into possession by the police from the field of the accused and the nallah and were handed over on Sapurdari to Shri Prem Singh, Block Officer. 250 scants and bailies of desdar and 61 scants and bailies were also recovered and seized by the police from the road-side at Domehar which were also handed over on Sapurdari to Block Officer, Shri Prem Singh. However, the case of the prosecution is that the accused had felled trees without getting any permission of the Forest Department and mixed the timber felled from the own land with the timber illicitly felled from the Government land. It is also the prosecution case that the accused transported 250 scants of deodar and 61 scants of Kail from Jalath Nailah to Domehar Road-side without any pass or permit from the Forest Department. The trial commenced and the same ended in the acquittal of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences However, relating to the disposal of the case property, the trial court ordered the confiscation thereof to the State of Himachal Pradesh.
3. The petitioner assailed this order by way of appeal before the Sessions Judge, Simla, but the same was dismissed by the impugned judgment. This is how the present petition has come before this court.
4. Shri K. D Sood, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has very seriously contended that the judgment under revision deserves to be set-aside as the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Elaborating his submissions, he urges that the trial court did not hold any inquiry while passing the order under section 452 of the Code relating to the disposal of the case property on the conclusion of the trial. I am not impressed by this submission of Shri K. D. Sood. In my opinion, order under section 452 of the Code is passed on the termination of the inquiry, trial or proceedings before a Court. It is passed consequent to the decision of the main case. For passing an order relating to the disposal of the case property, there is no need to examine witnesses and to hold an elaborate inquiry. For arriving at a decision, the court looks at and examines the facts and the evidence already before it in the main case. Similar views were expressed in 1979 Cr LJ 428, Govindachari v. State and another.
5. Shri K. D. Sood further contended that the trial court having acquitted the petitioner, it was but natural that the case property seized from the petitioner is returned to him. Equally unimpressive is this submission of the learned Counsel. It is a general rule that when a property is seized from a person and he is acquitted of the charge, the property should be returned to him. However, i
