Back
PANKAJ BHATIA
Santosh Kumar Chaurasia – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. Prin. Secy. Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. In terms of the order passed by this court dated 11.04.2022, the instructions have been filed, the same are taken on record.
3. The present petition challenges the order dated 25.08.2021 whereby the order of confiscation was passed against the petitioner in respect of his vehicle being Truck No. UP75 M-9306 as well as the order dated 21.02.2022 whereby the appeal preferred under section 52(B) of the Indian Forest Act was dismissed.
4. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the Truck bearing No. UP 75 M-9306, which was purchased by the petitioner after availing a loan. The petitioner gives his truck on hire for transporting the goods from one place to another. On 05.06.2021, the truck of the petitioner was seized while it was transporting 45 logs of Sagwan. As the forest officer was of the view that the goods being transported on the vehicle were illegally transported and an order of seizure came to be passed on 05.06.2021 (Annexure no.4).
5. A perusal of the said seizure report given to the Magistrate indicates that on 05.06.2021 at about 3.00 am w
The necessity of complying with mandatory provisions before confiscating property under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and the prohibition of confiscation if the owner proves lack of knowledge or co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's use of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code to correct the error of law and set aside the illegal confiscation under the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the burden of proof regarding the knowledge and precautions taken against the use of a vehicle for a forest....
The owner's liability in forest-offense cases is strict, requiring proof of non-involvement; mere denials are insufficient to overturn administrative actions.
Confiscation of forest produce is discretionary and must consider circumstances affecting its necessity.
Confiscation under the Orissa Forest Act requires proof of a forest offence and adherence to procedural safeguards, failure of which invalidates the confiscation order.
Confiscation under the Indian Forest Act requires proven knowledge or connivance of the owner in the illegal transport of forest produce, which was not established here.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
