Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Revision Petition No. 2/2015 whereby learned revisional Court by dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner upheld and affirmed the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the appellate authority (Chief Conservator of Forest) Rajasthan, Jaipur passed in Appeal No. 183/2014 whereby the learned appellate authority upheld and affirmed the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the Authorized Officer (Assistant Conservator of Forest) Sikar whereby the learned Authorized Officer ordered to confiscate tractor trolly bearing registration No. RJ -23 -RA -7413 alongwith forest produce in respect of FIR No. 41/42 dated 12.09.2014. The prayer of the petitioner, who is registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle, is that all the above three orders be quashed and set aside and the aforesaid seized vehicle may temporarily be released in his favour on "Supurdginama" during the course of trial of the case.
(2.) BRIEF relevant facts for the disposal of this petition may be stated as below: - "(1) The aforesaid tractor trolly was seized and detained on 12.09.2014 by a competent forest officer in a forest area on the premise that it was found carrying stones illegally mined from that forest area without any valid permit or transit pass and in this regard FIR No. 41/42 came to be registered for offences under Sections 32, 33, 41 and 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). (2) Report regarding commission of forest offences and seizure of the vehicle with a prayer to initiate confiscation proceedings regarding the seized vehicle and forest produce was sent by the Seizure Officer to the Authorized Officer (Assistant Conservator of Forest), Sikar on 19.09.2014. (3) On prima facie being satisfied that the aforesaid vehicle was involved in commission of forest offences in respect of the aforesaid forest produce, requisite intimation as per Section 52(4)(a) of the Act was sent by him in the prescribed form to the concerned Magistrate about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the seized vehicle and forest produce and show cause notices were also served upon the petitioner (being registered owner) and also on the driver of the vehicle. (4) Petitioner appeared before the Authorized Officer and filed his written submissions alongwith some documents. The main contention of the petitioner was that the stones which have been seized are his personal property and were being transported from one place to another for construction purpose and they do not come within the purview of forest produce. It was prayed by him that the vehicle be released in his favour. (5) On the basis of material made available on record and after hearing the respective parties, the Authorized Officer vide order dated 25.11.2014 came to a finding that the vehicle in question was found being used for transportation of forest produce in the form of stones illegally mined from a forest area without a valid permit or transit pass with the knowledge and consent of the petitioner and forest offences under Sections 32, 33, 41 and 42 of the Act have been committed and as the seized vehicle has been found involved in commission of aforesaid forest offences, it is liable to be confiscated. (6) Aggrieved with the order dated 25.11.2014, petitioner preferred appeal under Section 52 -A of the Act before the appellate authority (Chief Conservator of Forest) Rajasthan, Jaipur and the learned appellate authority after hearing the petitioner, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18.12.2014. The learned appellate authority affirmed and upheld the finding of the Authorized Officer and refused to release the vehicle in favour of petitioner. It was held by the appellate authority that Authorized Officer is empowered to order confiscation of the seized vehicle if he is satisfied that it was involved in the commission of a forest offence even in absence of conviction of the accused by a criminal Court. (7) Still dissatisfied, petitioner preferred revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar under Section 52 -B of the Act but without any success. The learned revisional Court rejected the contention of the petitioner that vehicle can be confiscated only when accused is convicted for a forest offence by criminal Court after trial. It was observed by the revisional Court that provisions of Sections 52, 52 -A, 52 -B, 52 -C of the Act have overriding effect to provisions of Section 55 of the Act and Authorized Officer is empowered to confiscate the seized vehicle and the forest produce even before forest offence is found proved by the criminal Court." Inviting attention towards Section 55 of the Act, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per this provision a vehicle found to be used in committing a forest offence is liable to confiscation only if the accused is convicted for such offence after trial by a competent criminal Court. It was further submitted that in the present case trial is yet to be commenced and, therefore, the seized vehicle can be released by a competent Forest Officer on suitable conditions according to provisions of Section 53 of the Act. It was also submitted that during the course of trial provisions of Sections 52,52 -A, 52 -B and 52 -C are not applicable. It was pointed out that it is possible that after trial the accused is acquitted due to paucity of evidence or otherwise or with a finding that no forest offence has been committed and, therefore, one must not be deprived of possession of his vehicle merely on suspicion on the part of forest officer that it was involved in commission of a forest offence.
(3.) IN support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order dated 24.4.2015 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4362/2015 and order dated 14.11.2014 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2529/2014.;