The confiscation of vehicles under the Forest Act and Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 serves as a stringent deterrent against activities threatening forests and the environment, and is an independent procedure distinct from criminal prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. The present petition is being filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 28.11.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vijaypur in Case No. 1/2020, whereby the order dated 31.10.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class in Case No. 132/2020 was affirmed. It is submitted that by the order dated 31.10.2020 the applications under section 451, 457 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was rejected.

2. As per the prosecution story the Forest Department officials received an information regarding transportation of Chambal River sand which is being loaded in a Dumper (Truck) from near Village Rayadi. After receiving such information, while forest staff went towards the Village Rayadi, Barotha Ghat, which is prohibited area of the National Chambal Sanctuary they saw that a yellow colour dumper is coming from the upper area of Rayadi Ghat. At that point of time, the staff tried to stop the said vehicle by giving hand sign, the driver did not stop it. The staff informed about the incident to the superior authorities and followed the dumper which was loaded with sand, upto Vijaypur. Due to over speed, the vehicle could not be stopped. Thereafter the forest department personnel informed the incident to the SHO, PS Gaswani. Ultimately, the dumper vehicle was stopped by the police staff of the Police Station Gaswani. After a while, the forest department staff reached at Gaswani. They thoroughly inspected the dumper and found that the vehicle was loaded with Chambal river sand. The driver was not found at the spot. After inspection and inquiry, the said vehicle bearing registration No. MP-20-HB-6172 was seized for illegally carrying Chambal river sand from Barotha Ghat, a prohibited area of National Chambal Sanctuary.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the seized dumper vehicle. The vehicle was carrying sand with proper E-Pass from Venus Mining and Mineral Karera, Shivpuri to Sheopur and driver was Raveendra Kumar. Since the vehicle was having mechanical problem near Village Dhobani and despite the efforts to get it repaired by the driver the vehicle could not be repaired. Learned counsel further submitted that the driver was carrying valid pass to transport the sand and the vehicle is seized from the road side by the police. 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.

4. 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 Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Uday Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 524/2019 which has been recently decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 26th March, 2019 considering the several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the amended provisions of the Forest Act. It is argued that the petitioner's vehicle was found carrying illegal sand which has been admitted by the petitioner, therefore, in such circumstances, the vehicle in question as was found and involved illegal transportation of sand was rightly being confiscated. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Niwas Dubey Vs. State of M.P. in M.Cr.C. No. 21295/2017 vide order dated 01.03.2018 and also in the case of State of West Bengal and Others vs. Sujit Kumar Rana reported in Cr.A. No. 453/1997 decided 20.01.2004, 2004 (4) SCC 129). She has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner's vehicle was found carry