Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. When a truck bearing No. BR -14 -G -8697 was found carrying 145 pieces of wood, it was intercepted and pieces of wood were seized, and an offence report was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate with respect to commission of offence under sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and also for contravention of Rules 3/8 of the Bihar Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules against this petitioner who happened to be the owner of the truck and also against the driver and cleaner of the truck.
(2.) SIMULTANEOUSLY a confiscation proceeding bearing Confiscation Case No. 117 of 1997, was initiated for confiscating the truck and also for the pieces of wood. The confiscating authority vide its order dated 27th September, 1999, confiscated the truck. The said order was challenged before the appellate authority, whereby, the appellate authority affirmed the order, passed by the confiscating authority. Both the orders were challenged before this Court vide W.P. (C) No. 5502 of 2001. The said writ petition was allowed, whereby, the order of confiscation passed by the confiscating officer and also the appellate order were set aside. However, the matter was remanded back for reconsideration of the matter in the light of the order passed by this Court. Thereupon the confiscating authority after taking into consideration the material brought on record did hold candidly that it is on account of connivance on the part of the driver and the cleaner, the offence was committed. However, at the same time it was also recorded that connivance of the petitioner also seems to be there as the petitioner failed to prove his alibi and as such, it was recorded that the petitioner's indirect involvement also appears to be there. That order has been challenged through this writ application. Mr. Sohail Anwar, learned Senior Counsel submits that the order passed by the confiscating authority clearly goes to establish that there was no direct connivance of this petitioner either with the truck driver or cleaner and that after the order was passed, the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charge vide judgment dated 30th June, 2009, passed in F. Case No. 80 of 1995 (T.R. No. 460 of 2009) by Prafulla Kumar, J.M. 1st Class, Khunti and, therefore, once the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charge, it will have a direct bearing on the order of the confiscation whereby, the order of confiscation is liable to be set aside.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge which was subject -matter of the confiscation proceeding. On this ground alone the order passed by the confiscating authority vide order dated 3.3.2003, in confiscation Case No. 117 of 1997, is fit to be set aside. That apart the confiscating authority never seems to have found direct involvement of this petitioner who is the owner of the truck which has been confiscated and as such, the order of confiscation, confiscating the truck also seems to be bad. Accordingly, the order dated 3.3.2003, passed by the confiscating authority in Confiscation Case No. 117 of 1997 is hereby quashed.;