1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(Cr.) No. 21 of 2013

…..

Kishundeo Rai

….. Petitioner(s).

-V e r s u s-

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Division, Hazaribagh-cum-Authorised

Officer , (Section – 52 of Indian Forest Act), P.O., P.S. & District-

Hazaribagh.

3. Range Officer, Koderma Wild Life Forest Range, Koderma, P.O., P.S. &

District- Koderma.

….. Respondent (s).

…..

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

…..

For the Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Navnit Prakash, A.C. to S.C.III

…..

Reserved On 22/10/2019

Pronounced On 01/09/2020

1.

In this writ application, the petitioner prayed for quashing the

entire proceeding of Confiscation Case No. 57 of 2012 pending before

Divisional

Forest

Officer-cum-Authorised

Officer,

Wild

Life

Division,

Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder the respondent had issued a notice to

the petitioner to show cause as to why not the Tata 407 vehicle bearing

Registration No. BR-06G-6547 be confiscated. Further a prayer has been

made to release the said vehicle.

2.

During pendency of this writ application, a counter-affidavit was

filed and it was brought to the notice of this Court and the petitioner, that the

confiscation proceeding has already culminated in issuance of final order of

confiscation whereby the vehicle of the petitioner stood confiscated on

11.03.2013. On 12.05.2014, a supplementary affidavit was filed by the

petitioner and a prayer was made to quash the final order passed in the

Confiscation Case No. 57 of 2012 which is dated 11.03.2013. Thus, in this

writ application the petitioner has prayed to quash the entire confiscation

proceeding including the final order passed by the concerned authority in

Confiscation Case No. 57 of 2012 and to release the vehicle.

3.

The petitioner is the registered owner of a commercial vehicle i.e

Truck bearing Registration No. BR-06G-6547. The said truck was loaded with

Kendu leaves and was seized by the Forest Officers for violating the

provisions of the Indian Forest Act. The driver of the said vehicle revealed

that Kendu leaves were loaded from reserved forest and thus a criminal

prosecution was initiated against the driver and the owner of the vehicle.

2

4.

The petitioners claimed that the vehicle was seized at Meghatari

check post which is situated on the Ranchi-Patna National Highway so it

cannot be said that the vehicle of the petitioner was involved in commission

of a forest offence. It is the case of the petitioner that no offence under Wild

Life Protection Act or the Indian Forest Act is made out in the instant case. It

is submitted that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle was not at all

involved in the offence and there was no connivance with the driver in

committing the offence. Thus, the petitioner’s vehicle could not have been

made subject matter of the confiscation proceeding. It is submitted that there

is no application of Section 29 of the Wild Life Protection Act. It is submitted

that confiscation proceeding was initiated by respondent no. 2 who happens

to be the Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Division. It is submitted that since

there is no application of Wild Life Protection Act, the Divisional Forest

Officer, Wild Life Division, Hazaribagh does not have any jurisdiction to

initiate and pass final order in the confiscation proceeding. As mentioned

earlier the Confiscation Proceeding No. 57 of 2012 was disposed of on

11.03.2013 whereby the vehicle of the petitioner was confiscated.

5.

The main point which has been raised by the counsel for the

petitioner is that the respondent no. 2 i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life

Division, Hazaribagh-cum-Authorised Officer in terms of Section 52 of the

Indian Forest Act has go