- (1.) THROUGH this application seizure of a tractor, bearing engine no.25352 G and chassis no. 3492167 has been sought to be quashed and consequently, prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to release the said vehicle. The facts giving rise this application are that the Forest Guard while was taking round in the forest, intercepted a tractor in a forest area, bearing engine no.25352 G and chassis no.3492167, when it was carrying away boulders taken out from the forest and hence, the tractor loaded with boulders was seized. This petitioner and other accused persons, who had indulged themselves in the aforesaid crime, were seen fleeing away. Accordingly, offence report was submitted putting allegation that the petitioner and others have committed offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. Subsequently, a confiscation proceeding was initiated under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act for confiscating the tractor. In the said confiscation proceeding, an application, as per the case of the petitioner, was filed for interim release of the tractor but no order was passed and as such, the petitioner has preferred this writ application whereby seizure of the tractor has been sought to be quashed and at the same time, prayer has also been made to direct the authorities to release the vehicle.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that seizure of the tractor carrying stones said to have been taken out from the forest area was effected by the Forest Guard, who is below the rank of Range Officer an as such, he, in terms of the provision as contained in Section 52 -D of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment), is not competent to make such seizure and once the seizure is held to be illegal, entire prosecution and even confiscation proceeding would be vitiated and, therefore, the tractor be directed to be released as that is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of release of the vehicle has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Satrughan Singhal v/s. State of Jharkhand and others [2009 (2) East Cr. C 445 (jhr)]. Further a case of State of Karnataka v/s. K.Krishnan [ 2000 (3) East Cr. C 1053 (SC)] and also a case of Section Forester and another V/s. Mansur Ali Khan [2004(2) JCR 96 (SC)] were referred to. The stand of the State, as has been taken in the counter affidavit, is that the petitioner, as per the allegation prima facie, seems to have committed offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act as he was seen taking away the boulders taken out from the forest area on a tractor which on being intercepted was seized by the Forest guard under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment) and for the purpose of seizure, Forest Guard has been notified to the ˜Forest Officer' and as such, seizure cannot be said to be illegal and moreover, any illegality with respect to search and seizure of the vehicle or the forest produce will have no bearing on a confiscation proceeding and also over the criminal case which proposition of law has been laid down by the Patna High Court in a case of Bijay Krishna Sahay V/s. State of Bihar and others [1998(3) PLJR 429 (FB)].
(3.) HAVING head learned counsel appearing for the parties, I do not find any substance in the submission that search and seizure being effected by the Forest Guard is illegal, in view of the provision as contained in Section 52 -D of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment) as under Section 52 -D of the Act any Forest Officer not below the rank of Range Officer of forest or any Police Officer not below the rank of Sub -Inspector is not competent to effect search and seizure. It be stated that Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment) speaks about the seizure and its procedure for the property liable for confiscation whereas Section 52 -D speaks about the power of entry, inspection, search and seizure. Here, it would be appropriate to refer to those sections 52 and 52 -D as inserted by the Bihar Amendment which reads as follows: "52. Seizure and its procedure for the property liable for confiscation - (1) When there is reason to believe that forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce together with all tools, arms, boats, vehicles, chains or any other article used in committing any such offence, may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer." "52 -D. Power of entry, inspection, search and seizure - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force any Forest Officer not below the rank of Range Officer of Forest or any Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub - Inspector, may, if he has reasonable grounds to believe that any forest offence has been committed in contravention of this Act, enter upon, inspect and search any place, premises, appurtenances thereto, land, vehicles or boat and seize any illegal forest produce and all tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing such offence." ;