- (1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) In the instant case, the order dated 28th May, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalpaiguri in Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 1998 is under challenge whereby and whereunder the order of confiscation of the vehicle charged with an offence of committing breach of Forest Act was set aside and quashed.
(3.) Before going into the merits of the case as raised by the parties it appears that the Misc. Appeal was preferred assailing the order of authorized officer and Deputy Field Director, Buxa Tiger Reserve (West), Jalpaiguri along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as there was a delay in preferring the appeal. By the order dated 10th November, 1998 the learned District Judge aforesaid admitted the Misc. Appeal provisionally subject to disposal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act during the hearing of the Misc. Appeal. To resist the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the petitioner herein took a point that the Misc. Appeal was time barred as the order impugned was received by the appellant of Misc. Appeal by 10th October, 1998, which, however, was denied by the appellant of the Misc. Appeal by contending, inter alia, that the name of the addressee in the envelope which carried the impugned order was wrongly addressed by different name. The petitioner herein urged , the point that through the constituted attorney the impugned order was served and accordingly the name of the owner was not reflected in the envelope. The learned Court below as it appears from the order dated 10th November, 1998 has kept the matter pending for decision. The relevant portion of the order dated 10th November, 1998 reads to this effect.:- "It appears that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit coupled with xerox copy of an empty envelope containing the name of one Ram Kumar Prosad of Gossaigaon, District Kokrajhar, Assam in compliance with the report submitted by the office that the said Misc. Appeal has been filed beyond the statutory period. The learned Advocate submits that the petitioner received the copy of the order on 10.10.98 and hence the delay in filing the Misc. Appeal. In support of his submission he places his reliance on the envelope contending that the same was sent on 7.10.98 and it was received by the petitioner on 10.10.98. I am unable to place any reliance upon the empty envelope since it contains the name of Ram Kumar Prosad while the petitioner is Harbans Lai son of Madanlal. So by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that this envelope was received by the petitioner containing the copy of the order passed by the Authorised Officer. The learned Advocate at this stage, submits that Ram Kumar Prosad was the constituted Attorney of the petitioner and as such the envelope bore his name as a constituted attorney the petitioner. Be that as it may, considering the other submissions relating to the admission of the Misc. Appeal on behalf of the petitioner, the Misc. Appeal is provisionally admitted subject to the disposal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act during hearing of the Misc. Appeal...";