The court emphasized the necessity of establishing the involvement in a forest offence before passing an order of confiscation under the Indian Forest Act.

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 while checking, 45 logs of Sagwan wood were being transported illegally by loading the same on the vehicle in question. It was also recorded that the inquiry is going on. The said seizure report was also sent to the authorized officer under section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act. It is also informed at the bar that a case of criminal prosecution under the provisions of the Forest Act is pending before the magistrate and the same is not proceeding any further. The petitioner moved an application stating that he was a mere transporter and nothing was recorded as against the petitioner so as to implicate him in the offence in question, as such he requested that the Truck in question be released in his favour. On the said application, an order came to be passed on 25.02.2021 whereby the authorized officer exercising his power under section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act (as amended in the State of U.P.) proceeded to confiscate the truck in question. The petitioner preferred an appeal under section 52-B of the Indian Forest Act (as amended in the State of U.P.), which too has been dismissed. The said orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.

6. Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, as amended in the State of U.P., confers the power on the forest officer or a police officer to stop and detain any vehicle and section 52(3) provides that after making a seizure report, the same shall be sent to the magistrate concerned. Section 52 is quoted herein below:

Section 52 :

(i) in sub-section (1), for the words "vehicles or cattle", substitute the words "vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains or other articles";

(ii) for sub-section (2), substitute the following sub-section, namely:—

"(2) Any Forest-officer or Police-officer may, if he has reason to believe that a boat or vehicle of which a forest-offence has been, or is being, committed, require the driver or other person in charge of such boat or vehicle to stop it, and he may detain such boat or vehicle for such reasonable time as is necessary to examine the contents in such boat or vehicle and to inspect the records relating to the goods transported so as to ascertain the claims, if any, of the driver or other person in charge of such boat or vehicle regarding the ownership and legal origin of the forest-produce in question.

(3) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made, and if the seizure is in respect of forest-produce which is the property of the State Government, shall also make a report to the authorized officer."

7. Section 52-A of the Act prescribes the pro