Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 2119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Md Mohsin Sheikh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondent
W.P. (Civil) No. 4094 of 2004
Decided On : 03-04-2018
Kanti Kumar Ojha, Adv., Rakesh Kumar, Adv., Vijay Kant Dubey, Adv.
The court emphasized the importance of conclusive evidence and the jurisdiction of the appellate authority in adjudicating questions of fact and law.
Headnote:
confiscation - truck seizure - The court found serious infirmity in the impugned order and set it aside due to lack of conclusive evidence of the truck being seized within the forest area.
Fact of the Case:
On 02.01.1997, a truck loaded with boulders was confiscated for not carrying a valid challan. The petitioner denied knowledge of the truck operating without a valid challan and being seized within the forest area.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate authority held that the truck was seized outside the forest area and the opposite party failed to establish it was seized within the forest area. The revisional authority interfered with the appellate order without conclusive evidence.
Issues: The main issue was the location of the truck seizure and the validity of the confiscation based on the lack of a valid challan.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found serious infirmity in the impugned order due to lack of conclusive evidence and the revisional authority exceeding its jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.
JUDGMENT
Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – Aggrieved of order dated 27.11.2002 passed in Revision Case No.C16 of 2002 by which the revisional authority has setaside the appellate order dated 08.11.2001, the petitioner has approached this Court.
2. Briefly stated, on 02.01.1997 a truck loaded with boulders was confiscated on the ground that it was not carrying a valid challan. The confiscating officer vide its order dated 01.12.1997 has ordered confiscation of the truck bearing no. BR35H0191 along with the handbroken boulders. The petitioner has denied that he had any knowledge of the truck operating without valid challan and it was seized within the forest area carrying illegal boulders. The petitioner has further pleaded that in the criminal case, he has been acquitted of the criminal charges framed against him. The appellate authority by an order dated 08.11.2001 has held that the truck was seized outside the forest area and the oppositeparty has failed to establish that it was infact seized within the forest area. The appellate order has been interfered by the revisional authority without concluding that the aforesaid finding recorded by the appellate authority is perverse, or that the department has produced indisputable document to establish that the truck along with boulders was seized within the forest area. The revisional authority was not exercising a jurisdiction larger than the one conferred upon the appellate authority, which can adjudicate the questions of fact as well as law.
3. In the above facts, finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 27.11.2002, it is setaside. The writ petition stands allowed.
