HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VISHAL DHAGAT
Savailal Shah – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 31626/2019
FOREST OFFENCE - CONFISCATION OF VEHICLE - COMPOUNDABLE OFFENCE
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's tractor was confiscated by Forest Officials for transporting trees without a transit permit. The trees were felled by the owner from his field and sold to another individual. The petitioner was transporting the trees when they were seized by the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not cut the trees from a reserved forest area and that the offence was compoundable in nature.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had committed a forest offence by transporting trees without a transit permit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offence was compoundable in nature and that the petitioner was an agriculturist. The court also considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the petition and remanded the matter back to the Chief Conservator of Forest directing him to compound the offence and release the alleged tractor after taking compounding fees.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 27.11.2018 (Annexure-A/2) by which vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing No. MP-66-A-2476 was confiscated by Forest Officials.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that trees standing in field of one Ramlallu was touching transmission lines of Power Grid Corporation, therefore, said trees were fell by owner and later on, same was sold to one Kamlesh Sharma. Kamlesh Sharma was transporting said trees in tractor belonging to petitioner and during search, it was seized by police and later on confiscated by Forest Department. It is submitted that applicant has not cut any trees from reserved forest area. There are violation of transit rules for transportation of trees but no forest offence has been committed by the petitioner. Petitioner is ready to compound the offence committed by him and same is compoundable in nature as per Section 68 of the Indian Forest Act,
1927. In view of same, confiscated tractor belonging to petitioner may be released.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the petition and submitted that forest offences are serious in nature. Petitioner acting along with Kamlesh and Ramlallu is transporting the trees without any transit permit. Trees which are found in tractor is of prohibited category and cannot be transported without permit. Son of owner of tractor was along with the driver when trees were being transported, therefore, knowledge can readily be inferred on part of petitioner. In these circumstances, petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. On going through the facts of the case, it is found that petitioner himself has not cut the forest trees. He has violated the Rules regarding transportation of timber without permit. Offence is compoundable in nature. Petitioner is an agriculturist.
6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is partly allowed and matter is remanded back to Chief Conservator of Forest directing him to compound the offence and release the alleged tractor after taking compounding fees.
7. With aforesaid, petition is disposed off. (VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE $A Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHABANA ANSARI Signing time: 21-03-2024 12:28:45
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.