JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J. (Oral) - This petition is directed against the orders of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, dated 7.5.2003,dismissing the appeal of the petitioner under Section 59 of the Indian Forest Act, against the order of Authorised Officer (DFO), Bilaspur, dated 14.10.1999.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy, few facts may be noticed:

3. On 27.8.1998, a Truck bearing registration No.HID 5079 was intercepted by the SHO Police Station, Sadar, in Nihal Sector at Bilaspur. The truck at the relevant time was driven by Karam Chand and was loaded with the timber without any transit pass or export permit. Respondents Kunj Lal and Rajesh Kumar also sitting in the truck. On search, 54 scants of timber (Deodar of different sizes) were recovered. A case in terms of FIR No. 148/98, for offences punishable under Sections 379,420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act was registered?

4. It appears that this truck was financed by the petitioner "Himgiri Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd." And financial assistance was provided to the extent of Rs.72,000/-. The matter went to the Authorized Officer (DFO), Bilaspur, for confiscation of the truck, under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act. The Authorized Officer directed confiscation of the truck, after hearing the registered owner and driver of the truck, from whom the truck was taken into possession.

5. Dissatisfied the petitioner carried an appeal, under Section 59 of the Indian Forest Act, before the Teamed Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that under the Hire Purchase Agreement, it is the petitioner who is entitled to the custody of the truck in case the installments are not paid and as the installments had not been paid by the owner of the truck, therefore, this truck could not be confiscated by the Authorized Officer.

7. Section 52, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, after its amendment in the year 1991, reads: "Any Forest Officer or Police Officer may. If he has reasons to believe that a vehicle has been or is being used for the transport of timber (excluding fuel wood) resin, Khair wood and Katha in respect of which a forest offence has been or is being committed, require the driver or other person-in-charge of such vehicle to stop the vehicle and cause it to remain stationery as long as may reasonably be necessary to examine the contents in the vehicle and inspect ail records relating to the goods carried which are in the possession of such driver or other parson-in-charge of the vehicle. Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been seized, and shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure- (a) Where the offence, on account of which the seizure has been made, is in respect of timber (excluding fuel wood), resin, khair wood and katha which is the property of the State Government, to the concerned authorised officer under sub-section (1) of Section 52-A:and (b) In other cases, to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure is made."

8. A bare perusal of Section 52 shows that if a forest produce is illegally transported in the vehicle, then such vehicle is liable to be seized by the authorized officer who seizes the goods carried in such vehicle.

9. Section 52-A and 52-B provides for confiscation of the vehicle and other forest produce and procedure thereof.

10. Section 52-A and 52-B reads: Confiscation by Forest Officers in certain cases - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in-this-Chapter, where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber (excluding fuel wood), resin, khair wood and katha, which is the property of the State Government, the officer seizing the property under sub-section (1) of Section 52 shall without any unreasonable delay produce it, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats or vehi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document