ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek quashment of order dated 30-8-2000 passed by the Authorised Officer under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, which shall herein after be referred to as "act", wherein the petitioners Truck bearing registration No. M. P. G.-2234 is ordered to be confiscated.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the confiscation may be summarised as follows:-In P. O. R. No. 10286/3, dated 31-5-1985, the aforesaid Truck belonging to Madanlal Asati, the predecessor-in-title, of the petitioners, was seized by Shri P. K. Ghondke, Range Officer, Lamta, at Asati Saw Mill, Lamta, for transporting 24 logs of 'beeja' illegally. Then a complaint under Section 26 of the Act read with Section 5 of the M. P. Vano-Upaj Vyapar Viniyaman Adhiniyam, was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balaghat, against Madanlal Asati and five others, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 574/95. The proceeding under Section 52 (3) of the Indian Forest (M. P. Amendment) Act, 1983, were also initiated for confiscating the aforesaid Truck, by the Authorised Officer. On being noticed under Clause A of Sub-section (4) of Section 54 of the Act, Madanlal Asati appeared before the Authorised Officer and filed his reply. Then, after affording an opportunity of adducing the evidence, the Authorised Officer confiscated the aforesaid vehicle by order dated 26th August, 1985.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Madanlal Asati filed an appeal, registered as Appeal No. 59/85, which stood disposed of by the Conservator of Forest, Balaghat, on 20th November, 1985. Then these petitioners assailed the aforesaid order dated 20-11-1985, passed by Conservator of Forest, Balaghat, in Appeal No. 59/85 in Criminal Revision No. 67/85, which stood disposed of by IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Balaghat, on 31-12-1997. The learned IInd A. S. J. partly allowed the revision and remanded the case back to the Authorised Officer for a fresh decision according to law after affording the proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties. While disposing of the aforesaid Criminal Revision No. 67/85, it was observed by the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Balaghat, that since Shri Quazi, who ordered the confiscation of the aforesaid vehicle in the capacity of Authorised Officer, got the proceeding of seizure of aforesaid vehicle also conducted as per his direction, therefore, he was not competent to pass the order of confiscation, in the capacity of Authorised Officer. Then, in compliance to order dated 31-12-1997 passed by IInd AS. J. , Balaghat, in Criminal Revision No. 67/85, the confiscation proceedings were commenced afresh since 31-12-1997. Thereafter, the statements of defence witnesses--Bhakhtraj Asati, Shankarlal and Buddhulal are found to have been recorded by the Authorised Officer on 15-5-1998 and 10-6-1998. The statements of fourth defence witness Ram Kumar Asati, is noted to have been recorded on 17-7-1998. Then, after conclusion of recording of evidence of the parties, the Authorised Officer, Balaghat, passed the order of confiscation of aforesaid vehicle afresh, on 30-12-1998. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid confiscation order dated 30-12-1998 also in appeal before the Conservator of Forest, Balaghat, who remanded the matter back to the Authorised Officer with a direction that the statement of officer who made seizure of the vehicle, is not recorded and hence the directions issued by the Court of IInd A. S. J. , Balaghat, are not complied with.