Decided on April 22,1997

Mukul Kumar Respondents


ARUN KUMAR GOEL,J - (1.)Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the records, of this case.
(2.)State has preferred this revision petition feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by Shri B.D. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan. dated 31.3.1994 in Criminal Appeal No. 24 -N/10 of 1993. By means of impugned judgment, appeal filed by the respondent against order of confiscation of Truck No. HIN -388 by the authorised officer belonging to the petitioner has been set aside and the truck in question has been ordered to be released on the respondents furnishing security bond in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - with one surety in the like amount to be furnished by him to the satisfaction of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh undertaking to produce the same as and when called upon to do so.
(3.)Brief facts of this case are that as per prosecution the truck in question stands duly registered in the name of respondent, which was found to be involved in the illicit export of forest produce, i.e. timber on 24.12.1991. The matter having been brought to the notice of the authorized officer (Division Forest Officer, Rajgarh, Forest Division. Rajgarh), show cause notice was issued within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by the Himachal Pradesh Second Amendment Act, since no reply was received within the stipulated period of 7 days, in those circumstances vide order dated 4th May, 1992, the aforesaid authorized officer ordered the confiscation as according to him, it was involved in the smuggling of the timber. Here it may be appropriate to mention that notice was also issued to Satpal, S/o Ram Swaroop, who vide his reply dated 16th April, 1992 had dis -owned any connection with the truck in question and had fourther asked the officer concerned to enquire from Ashwani respondent. It is in this background as well as on account of non filing of reply to show cause notice that the confiscation of the truck was ordered. Against the aforesaid order of confiscation, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 59 of the Indian Forest Act as amended by the State of Himachal Pradesh which has been allowed. This order passed by the appellate authority has been questioned by the State in the present case.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.