ORDER

Date : 26.08.2022.

1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Forest Department.

2. In this petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner- Md. Mukul Hussain has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the order, dated 12.07.2022, passed by the learned SDJM (S) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in Offence Case No.SG/06(b)/ offence 2022/150-51. It is to be mentioned here that, vide the aforesaid order, the learned court below has dismissed the petition, filed by the petitioner, seeking custody of the seized sawn timbers.

3. It is to be noted here that from the seizure list, dated 23.03.2022, and also from the TP dated 21.03.2022, it appears that 2091 pieces of N. Saal logs were seized by the I.O., while the same was being carried in a Truck, bearing Regn.

No.ML-10-C-1522, from Meghalaya.

4. Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legal owner of the aforesaid sawn timbers and he purchased the same from Santina Soshang Saw cum- Veneer Mill, Nongstoin, on 21.03.2022. Mr. Mannan further submits that the petitioner had filed a petition seeking custody of the seized timbers before the Court of learned SDJM (S) No.1, Kamrup (M), at Guwahati, but, vide impugned order, dated 12.07.2022, the learned SDJM (S) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati had dismissed the petition, on the ground that the confiscation proceeding has already been initiated against the sawn timbers along with the vehicle. Mr. Mannan further submits that the petitioner has not received any notice of initiation of confiscation proceeding, in respect of the sawn timbers, as provided under Section 49, Sub- Section (5)(b) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and therefore, Mr. Mannan contended to allow this petition and to release the said sawn timbers, in the custody of the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, Mr. D. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Forest Department, submits that the petitioner has remedy before the Authorized Officer -cum- DFO, East Kamrup Division and as such, this petition may be dismissed and the petitioner may be directed to approach the Authorized Officer cum DFO, East Kamrup Division. Mr. Gogoi submits that there is discrepancy in respect of registration number of the vehicle, and that in the TP, it is mentioned as NLIDC-1522 and in some documents, it has been mentioned as ML-DIC-1522 and because of this discrepancy notice could not be issued to the petitioner.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the relevant provision of law.

7. Section 49(5)(b) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 provides that no order confiscating any property shall be made under the preceding provisions unless the Authorized Officer :

(i) send an intimation in the prescribed form about the initiation of the proceeding for confiscation of properly to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made;

(ii) issue a notice in writing to the person from whom the property is seized, and to any other person who may appear to the Authorized Officer to have some interest in such property and in cased of motorized boats, vessels, vehicles, trucks etc. having a registered number to the registered owner thereof.

8. Here in this case, admittedly notice was not issued to the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed this out that the petitioner has not received any notice in respect of initiation of any confiscation proceeding by the Authorized Officer. And the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is not disputed by Mr. D. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Forest Department.

9. Further it appears that the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer has already