Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(MP) 87

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
Vishal Mishra, J.
Pramod Gupta – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Conservator of Forests and Ors. – Respondents
MCRC. No. 34821 of 2020
Decided On : 07-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vivek Kumar Mishra, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent: Padamshri Agrawal, Learned Panel Lawyer

The legislative intent to ensure effective adjudication and deterrence against activities threatening the environment, as highlighted in the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and relevant judgments, influenced the court's decision to uphold the confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle.

Headnote:
Confiscation - Illegal Sand Transportation - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 26(1), Section 41, Section 52 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, particularly Section 26(1), Section 41, and Section 52, and their interpretation in light of relevant judgments. The court highlighted the purpose of the State amendment, the distinction between confiscation proceedings and criminal prosecution, and the legislative intent to ensure effective adjudication and deterrence against activities threatening the environment.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's vehicle was found carrying illegal sand without a valid license. Confiscation proceedings were initiated under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioner argued that confiscation was illegal as no criminal proceedings were finalized against him. The State relied on relevant judgments and the amended provisions of the Forest Act to support the confiscation.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the confiscation proceedings were in line with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uday Singh. It emphasized the duty of citizens to protect the natural environment and the need for statutory interpretation to suppress activities posing a danger to the environment. The court also highlighted the distinction between confiscation proceedings and criminal prosecution.
Issues: The main issue was whether the confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle for illegal sand transportation was legal under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, considering the absence of finalized criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and relevant judgments, emphasizing the legislative intent to ensure effective adjudication and deterrence against activities threatening the environment. It also considered the distinction between confiscation proceedings and criminal prosecution.
Final Decision: The petition was rejected, and the orders passed by the lower courts affirming the confiscation were upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through physical hearing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard through physical hearing.

3. The present petition is being filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order 30.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Revision Petition Case No. 132/2019, whereby the revision petition was filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. 19/3065 and the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2 have been affirmed.

4. It is submitted that in a sudden inspection in beet of Lakhnakhedi Chamber R.F. No. 516 tractor attached trolley bearing No. M.P.33/A.A.7618 was found carrying and transporting sand and accordingly a case was registered as Case No. 470/2018 on 11.04.2018 and the vehicle of the petitioner was seized and the matter was sent to the respondent No. 2 for confiscation of the said vehicle and the information regarding the same was sent to learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna and thereafter the proceeding of confiscation has been started. It is submitted that the petitioner is owner of the vehicle in question and vehicle has been confiscated without following the provision as contemplated under the Act. It is submitted that the vehicle in question was given to Gram Panchayat Bheelkheda, District Guna for rent of Rs. 15000/- per month by the petitioner to which the statements of the Officers of Gram Panchayat and affidavits are being filed along with the petition. Prior to the seizure of the vehicle by the respondents-authorities several complaints were being made by the petitioner against the respondents-authorities and the Officers regarding their corruption and illegal acts. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the vehicle cannot be confiscated until and unless the criminal proceedings are not finalized regarding seizure of vehicle but in the present matter neither any criminal proceedings have been filed by the respondents-authorities before any court of law nor any criminal proceedings are pending before any court of law. It is submitted that not even a charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner with respect to the illegal transportation of sand, therefore, confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioner is totally illegal. It is further pointed out that as the vehicle in question was given on rent to the Gram Panchayat Bheelkheda, District Guna. The factum of transportation of sand was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. The vehicle was given on rent to the concerning Gram Panchayat but they will be carrying out such illegal activities was not in the knowledge of the petitioner, in such circumstances, without giving any opportunity of hearing and filing objections to the petitioner and without deciding the objections, if filed, the confiscation of the vehicle is not permissible. He has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Premdas s/o Mangaldas Bairagi vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2013 (2) MPLJ 218. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate and subsequent order passed in the revision is per se illegal and contrary to the relevant provisions. Thus, he has prayed for setting aside the aforesaid orders.

5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the application filed by the petitioner and has supported the impugned orders and has submitted that the same are rightly being passed taking into consideration under the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document