IMPORTANT POINT
The Authorized Officer must follow the procedural requirements of the Indian Forest Act, including providing opportunities for cross-examination and issuing reasoned orders, to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice in confiscation proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 12.10.2021 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kupwara, whereby learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision petition filed against the order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Authorized Officer (DFO, Kamraj Forest Division Zangli Range Kupwara) and set aside the said order.

2. The record of the case reveals that Range Officer, Kandi Range Sopore, vide his report dated 20.05.2019, submitted an information before the Authorized Officer informing him that during the intervening night of 19/20th May, 2019, the officials of the Forest Department intercepted vehicle bearing Registration No. JK02BA-3662 for checking and during its search operation, illicit timber of deodar sawn 52 Nos. = 49.14 cfts was found loaded in the said vehicle. It was further revealed that the accused had managed to escape from the spot but they were properly identified. The Ranger Officer further reported that seizure memo of the seized vehicle along with the seizure memo of the timber was prepared on spot in presence of the witnesses and the seized articles were brought to Seizure Depot Kandi Sopore and handed over to incharge Seizure Depot for proper custody. A report was also lodged with the police in this regard. The Range Officer further prayed that proceedings for confiscation of the seized property may be initiated. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sopore, was also intimated and the notices were issued to the parties for appearance.

3. It appears that the accused persons including the respondent herein appeared before the Authorized Officer who recorded their statements. The Authorized Officer also recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses. After consideration of the material on record, the Authorized Officer recorded a satisfaction that the seized vehicle has been used in commission of a forest offence and, accordingly, an order of confiscation of the seized articles/property was passed by the Authorized Officer on 29.01.2021.

4. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the respondent by way of a revision petition before the Court of Sessions Judge, Kupwara. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 12.10.2021 allowed the revision petition and observed that the order passed by the Authorized Officer is illegal and perverse and, as such, the same deserves to be reversed.

5. It has been contended by the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed by the Revisional Court in a hot haste manner without proper application of mind; that the Revisional Court has misdirected itself by setting aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the police has filed a closure report in respect of the FIR which was lodged regarding the incident; that the learned Revisional Court has failed to appreciate that the proceedings before the Authorized Officer are independent and separate from the proceedings before the court of law.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the record of the Authorized Officer.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the confiscation proceedings before the Authorized Officer and the proceedings regarding trial of the accused persons are two independent proceedings and merely because accused are let off either because investigating agency did not find any evidence against them or because the Court has acquitted the accused, cannot nullify the order of confiscation passed by the Authorized Officer. In support of her aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer & Anr. vs. G.V. Sudhakar Rao & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 328.

8. There can be no quarrel with the proposition propounded by learned counsel for the petitioner which is supported by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel, but the question which begs the answer is as to whether