Confiscation of property under wildlife laws requires a finding of guilt in a criminal trial; mere suspicion is insufficient.

1. The petitioner No.1 is the registered owner of Maruti Zen bearing registration No.CG.04 / ZD 7655. The said vehicle was found involved in commission of offence punishable under S.9, S.44, S.51, S.25 & S.26(28) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (henceforth 'Act of 1972') and Criminal Case No. 647/2012 was registered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar titled as State of Chhatisgarh v. Mohammad Shoaib & another and same is pending consideration.

2. Case of the respondent / State, in brief, is that the petitioner No.1, who is registered owner of the above stated vehicle, was found committing offence, which is punishable under the Act of 1972. The said vehicle along with arms and other articles was seized by the jurisdictional forest authorities and, thereafter, proceeding for confiscation was initiated under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 read with S.26(Jha) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (henceforth 'Act of 1927'). The Specified Officer, by its order dated 23.08.2012, confiscated the said vehicle finding inter alia that the said vehicle was involved in hunting of the forest scheduled animal namely “Chital”.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of Specified Officer under the Act of 1972, instant writ petition under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners herein.

4. Case of the petitioners, in the instant writ petition, is that Criminal Case No. 647/2012 for commission of offence by using aforesaid vehicle under S.9, S.44, S.51, S.25, S.26 (28) of the Act of 1972 is pending consideration before the jurisdictional criminal court and date is fixed for further hearing. Unless it is established in the said criminal trial that the said vehicle is used for committing the aforesaid offences, the said vehicle cannot be confiscated in exercise of power conferred under S.39(1)(d) of the Act, 1972 and, as such, the order passed by the Authorized Officer and the Additional Divisional Forest Officer is unsustainable and bad in law.

5. Return has been filed on behalf of the Respondents / State stating inter alia that Authorized Officer has seized the vehicle of the petitioners finding that the said vehicle was used in commission of offence under the provisions of the Act of 1972 & the Act of 1927 and after giving due opportunity of hearing, the aforesaid vehicle has been seized and, therefore, no interference is called for in the order impugned and, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. No rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioners.

7. Shri Alok Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that order of the Authorized Forest Officer confiscating the vehicle of the petitioners is without jurisdiction and without authority of law as it has not been established in the criminal trial that the said vehicle was used for committing the offence under the Act of 1972 and they have not been convicted by the said criminal court for offence under the Act of 1972 and, as such, confiscation of the petitioners'vehicle by the Authorized officer is unsustainable and bad in law.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the writ petition and would support the order confiscating the vehicle of petitioner No.1.

9. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also gone through the relevant documents with utmost circumspection.

10. ln order to decide the question raised at the bar, it would be appropriate to notice certain provisions contained in the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 , whic