JPD-07 Ct No.01

31.07.2025 TN Calcutta High Court In The Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side CO 98 of 2025 Nilo Kheshito Zhimomi Vs.

The State of West Bengal and another Dr. Arjun Chowdhury, Ms. Pratusha Dutta Chowdhury, Ms. Sunayana Parveen, Ms. Riya Agarwal, Mr. Bappaditya Roy, Mr. Mantu Mandal …. for the petitioner Mr. Joyjit Choudhury, Ld. AAG, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Ms. Rima Sarkar ….for the State

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the vehicle of the petitioner was confiscated under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short “the 1927 Act”) on the allegation that it was carrying teak in contravention of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, which comprised of forest produce and came within the purview of a forest offence. Learned counsel submits that for a forest offence to be established, there has to be the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and a proper investigation before a criminal court. In the present case, in the absence of the same, it could not be said that the vehicle of the petitioner was carrying product within the purview of a forest offence.

2. Learned counsel places reliance, in support of such arguments, on a coordinate Bench judgment of Md. Rehan Alam vs. State of West Bengal and others, reported at 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 8393. In paragraph no. 17 thereof, the learned Single Judge distinguished the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Gopal Sarkar reported at (2002) 1 SCC 495 on the premise that the Supreme Court, while passing the said judgment, had only considered the provisions of Section 59A of the 1927 Act, which is a West Bengal amendment, without taking into consideration the effect of Section 55 of the parent Act. On such premise, the learned Single Judge was pleased to observe, inter alia, that since a forest offence had not been proved, the confiscation itself was bad. Learned counsel submits that the said judgment of the coordinate Bench was never taken up in appeal and has attained finality.

3. It is further highlighted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 55 of the 1927 Act clearly provides that confiscation may be in addition to any other punishment prescribed for the offence while reiterating that the confiscation can only be in respect of forest produce or tools, boats etc. in respect of which a forest offence has been committed. In the present case, it is argued, no FIR has yet been registered, nor has any criminal trial taken place, to establish that any forest offence was committed, despite the confiscation taking place in the year 2023.

4. Learned counsel next argues, also relying on the judgment of Md. Rehan Alam (supra), that since the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine either the complainant or any other witness of the case, the very process of confiscation is vitiated.

5. Learned AAG, appearing for the State, hands over a bunch of documents including a complaint dated June 20, 2022, lodged with regard to the alleged forest offence committed, in respect of which the vehicle of the petitioner was confiscated.

6. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that upon such confiscation, due procedure was followed in adherence to the principles of natural justice and confiscation of the forest produce and vehicle was lawfully ordered under Section 59A (3) vide Office Order No.285(C)/15-5 dated April

28, 2023.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner/owner of the vehicle was represented by counsel during the hearing before the Adjudicating Officer and, as such, there was no violation of natural justice in any manner.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner in reply that the petitioner’s vehicle was hired by a third party some time prior to the confiscation and, as such, the petitioner had no involvement in the forest offence, even if any. In fact, the petitioner himself lodged a complaint in that regard against such third party.

9. Upon a careful consideration of the arguments of the par