- (1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers: - "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 18.4.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mirzapur and order dated 24.1.2014 passed by the C.J.M., Mirzapur (annexue no. 8 and 7 to this writ petition). (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the tractor forthwith. (iii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the controversies involved in this writ petition in brief are that New Holland blue colour tractor without registration number bearing Chassis No. 87554477 -5245 was seized by forest guard Moti lal on 25.9.2013 alleging that it was being used in quarrying stones, surface soil and laterites etc. from the forest area situated in Madihan Range, District - Mirzapur in violation of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (as amended in U.P.) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It is also alleged that the driver of the tractor seeing the forest guard had un -loaded the forest produces from the trailer attached with the tractor equipped with hydrolic -pump and made a vain attempt to escape. However, the tractor with trailer was intercepted by the forest guard with the help of the local police and was seized. Case No. 20/13 -14 under Sections, 26(G), 41/42 and 52 A of the Act was registered against the driver of the tractor. The petitioner, who is undisputedly the owner of the tractor moved an application for release of the tractor and trailer in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur, who vide order dated 8.10.2013 released the tractor in favour of the petitioner subject to conditions mentioned in the order itself. It is after the release of the tractor, the Regional Forest Officer again seized the tractor for the reason that the confiscation proceeding of the tractor as envisaged under Section 52 A of the Act has been initiated by the authorised officer. The petitioner again moved an application for the release of the tractor before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mizrapur, which was rejected vide order dated 24.1.2014. The rejection order was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in criminal revision vide order dated 18.4.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved this writ petition for the aforementioned prayers.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. at a considerable length. The main brunt of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 52 of the Act enacts that when any forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce together with vehicles, cattle and others articles used in committing any such offence, may be seized by any forest officer or police officer. Any forest officer or police officer may detain any vehicle for a reasonable time, if he has reason to believe that the vehicle has been used for the transportation of any forest produce. Thus, when there is reason to believe that offence in respect of forest produce may have been committed, such vehicle may be seized by any forest officer or police officer. In this case, it is argued, that no forest produce together with the tractor was recovered. As per report of the forest officer itself the driver of the tractor after seeing the forest guard had run away from the forest area after unloading the stones and laterites from the trailer attached with tractor. The tractor was seized with the help of the police from the house of the petitioner. It is with this reason that learned C.J.M., Mirzapur has released the tractor in favour of the petitioner.;