- (1.) BY the Court. ''Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 28.8.2002 (Annexure - 5) passed in Revision Case No. (C) 59/01 by the respondent No. 2 ''The Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi rejecting the petitioner 'srevision application affirming the order dated 15.10.2001 (Annexure -4) passed in Confiscation Appeal No. 2 of 1993 -94 by the respondent No. 3 ''The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa rejecting the petitioner 'sappeal affirming the order dated 21.5.1993 (Annexure - 3) passed in Confiscation Case No. CS -1/93 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa, South Forest Division, Chaibasa (respondent No. 4) directing to confiscate the petitioner 'struck bearing No. BRS - 7671.
(2.) THE petitioner, who is owner of truck in question, had challenged the orders of the Courts below on the following grounds : '' (A) Whether the respondents are wholly erred in confiscating the petitioner 'struck bearing No. BRS -7671? (B) Whether in view of the facts that the two other criminal cases, one under Section 42 read with Section 40 of the Indian Forest Act and the other case under Sections 120 - B/307/120 -B/ 353/120 -B and 307, IPC instituted against the petitioner on the basis of same written report decided in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner 'struck can be confiscated? (C) Whether the respondents are empowered to confiscate the petitioner 'struck, when there is no overt act in the report filed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest that the petitioner was either driving the said tuck or be was travelling in the said truck. In the case in hand, the Divisional Forest Officer (respondent No. 4) initiated Confiscation Case No. CS -1/93 on the report filed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Incharge, Chaibasa Range, Chaibasa who seized the truck bearing No. BRS -7671 loaded with illegal timber in the night of 20/21st April, 1993. The timber included 39 pieces of Teak and 12 pieces of Bijasal sleeper which were crudely shaped with the help of the axe (tangi). The owner of the truck Om Prakash Sharma (petitioner) was issued notices to show cause as to why the seized property including the truck should not be confiscated. The petitioner did not appear personally rather he appeared through advocate. After hearing both the parties, the respondent No. 4 confiscated the seized property and the truck. Against that order, Confiscation Case No. 2 of 1993 - 94 was preferred in the Court of respondent No. 3 ''the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa who also found that the truck was loaded with illegal woods which was seized and confiscated. He considered that the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case by the Sessions Court and also considered that the petitioner was not present at the spot, rather driver was incharge of the vehicle without knowledge of the petitioner -owner which was engaged in commission of forest offence and found that the order passed in confiscation case by respondent No. 4 was justified. Against that appeal, the petitioner preferred revision before the Respondent No. 2. The Secretary, Department of Forest and - Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi in Revision Case No. (C) 59/01. He considered all the points raised in this writ petition and found no merit resulting dismissal of the revision. Thereafter the petitioner has challenged all the three orders of the Courts below in this writ petition. When the complaint which was the written information of the Assistant Conservator of Forest (respondent No. 5), is considered, I find that the truck in question was loaded with illegal Teak and Bijasal woods. The truck was seized in the night. is not in dispute that the truck was loaded with Teak woods and Bijasal and was apprehended inside the reserved forest area during an odd hours when according to rules, truck could not be plied before Sunrise and after set to and from the reserved forest areas. Under such circumstances, seizure of the truck was proper. When it was found that they involved in the commission of forest offence, then it is liable to be confiscated by the State so as to. deter the owners thereof as far as possible to involve their vehicles so as to facilitate the commission of the forest offence. Therefore, such a vehicle ought not to be ordinarily released to the owner as a matter of routine.
(3.) THE petitioner was given opportunity to show cause, but he did not file his show -cause that without his knowledge on connivance, the forest offence was committed by the driver who was incharge of the truck.;