Back
2011 Supreme(J&K) 566
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
J.P.Singh, J.
State of J & K -Appellant
Versus
Thakur Motors -Resopndent
561-A Cr.P.C No. 57/2003, Cr.M.P Nos. 107/2003, 103/2003 & 124/2003, 561-A Cr.P.C No. 58/2003, Cr. M. P Nos. 124/2003 & 107/2003
Decided On : 08-12-2011
For the Petitioner(s):Mr.R.S.Jamwal, Dy.A.G., For the Respondent(s):M/s Y.E.Tak & P.S.Pawar, Advocates.
Confiscation of government property under the Forest Act is permissible even before conviction for offences under the Act.
Headnote:
Forest Act - Confiscation of Timber - Sections 6, 15, 16, 26, 39 of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act - The court discussed the provisions of the Forest Act, including the conditions for transportation of timber, the authority for confiscation, and the requirement for conviction before confiscation. The court emphasized the importance of valid documents for transportation of timber and the distinction between government property and private property under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
A truck loaded with timber was intercepted without proper documents. Confiscation proceedings were initiated, and the Authorized Officer ordered the confiscation of the timber and the truck. The owners of the timber and the truck challenged the confiscation order before the Sessions Judge, who set aside the order. The State appealed the decision, arguing that confiscation proceedings were warranted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Authorized Officer's order was based on the violation of transportation regulations and the disparity between the seized timber and the timber purchased by the owner. The court also noted that the owner did not stake any claim to the seized timber, indicating it as government property.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the confiscation proceedings, the opportunity of hearing for the owner, and the requirement for conviction before confiscation under the Forest Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that confiscation of government property under the Forest Act is permissible even before conviction for offences under the Act. The court also emphasized the importance of considering factual findings and exercising jurisdiction in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Sessions Judge's orders and directed a fresh consideration of the Revision Petitions in accordance with the law.
2) Deputy Director Forest Protection Force Gamma Unit J3- Kathua, informed the Divisional Forest Officer, Kathua Forest Division Kathua, the Authorized Officer in terms of Section 26 of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act, 1987 (1930 A.D.) of the seizure requesting confiscation of the seized Truck and timber.
3) Initiating Confiscation proceedings, the Authorized Officer issued Notices to the concerned for their Response thereto.
4) During the currency of proceedings before the Authorized Officer, the seized Truck was ordered to be released on superdnama. This order was stayed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua on Deputy Director Forest Protection Force, Kathua's Criminal Revision.
5) Aggrieved by learned Sessions Judge's Order, the Deputy Director approached this Court seeking setting aside of the Revisional Court's Order of November 29, 2011, invoking its inherent jurisdiction.
6) Disposing of the Deputy Director's Petition, a direction was issued to the Authorized Officer to pass final orders on or before January 07, 2002 on Confiscation proceedings.
7) The Authorized Officer issued separate Notices to the owner of the Truck and timber for their appearance before him. The owner of the Truck did not appear and instead addressed Communication to the Authorized Officer to pass appropriate orders saying that he had nothing more to say in the matter. However in its Response to the Authorized Officer's Communication, the owner of the Timber indicated that he had purchased packing cases from Savera Enterprises on 05.11.2001 but had no knowledge about the seized illicit timber. According to him, he had not authorized anyone including the driver to load any other timber except the packing cases which were purchased by him from Savera Enterprises. Along with his Reply, he annexed photocopies of the Bill of Savera Enterprises, in terms whereof, 92 packing cases of 224.85 cft volume and 103 packing cases of 241.31 cft volume of timber, duly nailed were purchased for a total amount of Rs.1,41,200/-.
8) Considering the owner's Reply, the evidence produced before him and the records of the case, the Authorized Officer came to the conclusion that the seized timber was not out turn of C-Class timber and would not match the measurements and volume of timber which the owner had purchased from Savera Enterprises, Kunjwani Talab, Jammu, which had sold Nailed package cases and not Raw timber which was seized by Forest Protection Force. He, accordingly, directed confiscation of 675 pieces of seized timber of Kail and Fir of 593 cft volume and Truck bearing Registration No.PB08N-2860 belonging to M/s Thakur Motors. It was noticed by the Authorized Officer in his Confiscation order of 07.01.2002 that the consigner, transporter and/or consignee had not staked any claim to ownership of the seized timber which was presumed illicit under Section 39 of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act.
9) Aggrieved by Authorized Officer's Confiscation Order, Tarlochan Singh and M/s Thakur Motors, questioned it before the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua by their separate Criminal Revision Petitions.
10) Both the Revision Petitions were allowed by the learned Sessions Judge vide his order of April 25, 2003 setting aside Authorized Officer's order of 07.01.2002.
11) The State of Jammu and Kashmir has invoked inherent jurisdiction of the Court seeking setting aside of learned Sessions Judge's order, interalia, on the ground that learned Sessions Judge had erred in holding that confis
