The custody of seized forest produce must comply with statutory definitions, and unlawful seizure lacks legal standing under the Forest Act.

1.Question of propriety and jurisdiction in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the Sessions Judge, Rajouri while exercising revisional jurisdiction is involved in this petition, preferred for quashing the order passed in two Criminal Revisions No. 13/2000 and 14/2000 on 28-4-2000.

2. It is submitted that the Sessions Judge Rajouri who was under order of transfer should not exercise the jurisdiction in this matter. It is also urged that in case the Sessions Judge was to reverse the order under revision, then he should have made recommendation to this Court in terms of S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also urged that when this Court had taken cognizance of the matter under S.561 - A, Cr. P.C. and a petition bearing No. 16/2000 was pending in this Court, then least which was required on the part of the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri was to keep his hands off the file Though these issues have been urged with great vehemence on the part of the State Counsel and though the counsel for the private respondents have urged that there is no lack of propriety, nevertheless the issue which is involved on facts requires serious consideration. Day in and day out the State is being deprived of vital source of revenue in the matter of exploitation of forests and forest produce. It is precisely for this reason stringent provisions have been incorporated in the legislation dealing with forests.

3. With a view to appreciate the controversy the facts be noticed.

4. Range Officer, who figures as petitioner along with his Field Staff intercepted two trucks loaded with Pomegranate seeds (Anardana). This was on 18-11-1999 time is said to be 9 p.m. Place is said to be Kalakot. On enquiry it was found that Anardana was being transported. As the driver and three occupants of the trucks were not in a position to produce the documents regarding the source of this forest produce and as they were not in a position to produce or in possession of any valid permit, two trucks along with Anardana were seized. A report was made to the Divisional Forest Officer, Rajouri also. In this report it was mentioned : -

5. (i) three persons namely, Bal Krishan, Nanak Chand and Puskar Raj could not be apprehended as they fled from the scene.

6. (ii) That on further verification it was found that truck No. JKO 2F 1963 was driven by Om Parkash and Truck No. JKO 2H 9807 was driven by Parshotam Lal;
(iii) On scrutiny it was found that truck No. JKO 2F 1963 was owned by Vaneet Kumar Gupta and Truck No. JK 2H 9807 was owned by Bishan Kumar Sethi;
(iv) That the total quantity of Anardana loaded in the truck No. 1963 was about 100 Qtls and truck No. 9807 was 44.52 Qtls;
(v) The Range Officer found no reason not to believe that an offence has been committed under S.26(2) of the Forest Act ;
(vi) A report was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. This report is required to be sent in terms of S.26(4) of the Forest Act ;
(vii) Proceedings were taken for confiscation. This was on 3-12-1999. These proceedings continued on 10-12-1999, 27-12-1999 and 29-1-2000;
(viii) The Forest Officer before whom these proceedings were going on was of the opinion that Anardana which was seized was a forest produce. Its possession was illegal and unauthorised.
(ix) That the persons from whom seizure was made were unable to rebut the presumption which arises under S.39 of the Forest Act . Accordingly two trucks as also the Anardana were ordered to be confiscated. It was this order passed on 29-1-2000 which was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Rajouri.

7. Some other facts which are matter of history only m