ORDER :- This petition is directed against the order dated 30-6-2001 in Criminal Revision No. 44/2000 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni by which the order passed by the appellate authority annexure P/2 dated 23-6-2000 was affirmed.

2. The learned counsel submitted that the competent authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner in reply explained that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and that all reasonable and necessary precautions were taken against the use of the vehicle for commission of any forest offence. The competent authority vide order 23-7-1999 Annexure P/1 after appreciating the evidence produced before him found that the forest produce was transported without his knowledge and connivance and he had taken all the precautions for use of the said vehicle in the forest offence. The order passed by the competent authority Annexure P/1 was challenged by the Range Officer, Kanhiwada before the Conservator of Forest, who happens to be the appellate authority under Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The appellate authority-issued notices to the petitioner and by reversing the finding of the competent authority found that the petitioner failed to prove that the vehicle was used without his knowledge and connivance by his servant and directed confiscation of the vehicle. The order passed by the appellate authority was assailed by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, Seoni which was decided by order Annexure P/5 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni on 30-6-2001.

3. Before the revisional authority, the petitioner's contention was that such appeal was not maintainable before the appellate authority as under Section 52-A of the Act only an appeal is provided against an order of confiscation but the revisional Court turned down the aforesaid contention in paras 8 to 13 of the order and dismissed the revision. It is submitted that under Section 52-A of the Act, no such appeal is provided to the Range Officer. Apart from this, the Range Officer was not a person aggrieved as provided under Section 52-A of the Act. Reliance is placed to judgment of the Apex Court in Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H. M. Seervai, AIR 1971 SC 385 and submitted that this petition be allowed and the orders passed by the Revisional Court and the appellate authority may be set aside.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that under Section 52-A of the Act, the appellate authority was rightly approached by respondents by filing an appeal. The appellate authority was having jurisdiction under Section 52-A of the Act to entertain and decide the appeal against an order releasing the property in confiscation proceedings.

5. To appreciate rival contentions of the parties, the legal position in this regard may be seen.

Section 52-A of the Act reads as under :

52-A. Appeal against order of confiscation (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation may, within thirty days of the order, or if fact of such order has not been communicated to him, within thirty days of date of knowledge of such order, prefer an appeal in writing, accompanied by such fee and payable in such form as may be prescribed, and by certified copy of order of confiscation to the Conservator of Forests of the forest circle in which the forest produce, has been seized.

Explanation. - (1) The time requisite for obtaining certified copy of order of confiscation shall be excluded while computing period of thirty days referred to in this subsection.

(2) The Appellate Authority referred to in sub-section (1), may, where no appeal has been preferred before him, "suo motu" within thirty days of date of receipt of copy of order of confiscation by him, and shall on presentation of memorandum of appeal issue a notice for hearing of appeal or, as the case may be, of "suo motu" action to the officer effecting seizure and to any other person (including appellant, if any) who

Click Here to Read the rest of this document