Allahabad High Court
Noor Mohammad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 7 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:969
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3949 of 2023
Petitioner :- Noor Mohammad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Forest, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dheeraj Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
1. Heard Shri Dheeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner- Noor Mohammad against the orders dated 15.11.2022 and 25.04.2022 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Regional Forest Officer, Sampoorna Nagar, Range Forest Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the tractor of the petitioner bearing No. U.P.26L/1225, Engine No. 006500170CI/007000186CI (red colour) has been confiscated by the respondent no.3 and the appeal preferred against the same order has been dismissed by the respondent no.2 by passing impugned order of date 15.11.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has drawn the attention of this Court towards a copy of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.03.2019 in Writ-C No. 6784 of 2019 wherein the petitioner has been shown as one of the six petitioners in order to canvass that this writ petition was filed by the petitioner and other petitioners against the officers of the forest department as they were not allowing their live stock and domestic animals to graze even in the permitted area and due to this the forest officers including the Regional Forest Officer became inimical towards them and they have slapped two criminal cases against the petitioner and other accused persons and even when their ego was not satisfied they implicate the petitioner in the instant case.
4. It is vehemently submitted that it is admitted to the forest officials/officers that the tractor owned by the petitioner has not been found within any reserved forest area rather the story as cooked up by the forest officer is in terms that they have found some logs of 'Sal Wood' in the courtyard of the petitioner and when it was inquired from his family member as to from where these 'Sal Wood' logs have been obtained, no satisfactory answer was given and thereafter the tractor along with trolley and 'sal wood' logs were seized.
5. It is further submitted that the defence of the petitioner was that petitioner has been taken into custody from his house and in this regard CCTV footage was also provided to the authorized officers which shows the false narrative set-up by the forest officers/officials, however, the same has not been dealt with in right perspective.
6. It is also submitted that the petitioner is made accused of cutting 'sal tree' from within the reserve forest area but surprisingly it has not been mentioned anywhere in the complaint or impugned orders as to which tree in which plot number of the reserve forest area has been cut which throws a cloud of suspicion over the whole prosecution story.
7. It is next submitted that the tractor and trolley of the petitioner was never used in commission of any offence and the guilt of the petitioner is yet to be determined before a competent criminal court in an appropriate proceedings and having regard to the nature of evidence available against the petitioner and the defence taken by him the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is very remote and, thus, when the petitioner would be acquitted in the substantive offence the proceeding of confiscation would automatically fall and in this background having regard to the weak case of the prosecution, the tractor-trolley of the petitioner confiscated by the forest department be released in his favour.
8. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that, when there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner in the criminal case instituted by the forest department, the confiscation order would automatically go and, thus, in the meantime during the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner the tractor along with trolley be released in his favour.
9. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that a specific provision has been enacted by the legislature to confiscate the tools, vehicles and any other items used in cutting and poaching the prohibited trees of the reserve forest and the petitioner has not denied the fact that the said 'salwood logs' were not recovered from his premises and the defence has been taken that these logs were collected by them as they had come sailing in flood water and, therefore, half of the prosecution story is admitted to the petitioner and the possession of the prohibited trees is itself an offence in the Forest Act.
10. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender as two criminal cases has already been filed against him with regard to the heinous offence under the Forest Act.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it emerges that the case of the prosecution, as is reflected from the record is that on 07.07.2021 at about 12:30 pm. a raid was conducted by the forest officers/officials and seven 'salwood logs' were found loaded in the Dunlop attached with Mahindra Tractor described above which was standing in the courtyard of the petitioner. The villagers fortified that this tractor and trolley owns by the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not found at his house and their family members could not show any documentary evidence with regard to the ownership of these logs and, thus, the salwood logs as well the tractor-trolley was seized and at first the confiscation order was passed by the respondent no.3 and an appeal preferred there from was dismissed by the Principal Secretary/Appellate Authority, Department of Forest, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.
The defence of the petitioner appears to be that, at first there is no corresponding report which may show that any sal-tree has been cut in any reserve forest area and in absence thereof the story of the prosecution becomes weak and also the fact that the manner in which the recovery of 'salwood' is shown, could not be believed. Reliance has also been placed on the petition filed by the petitioner and other petitioners against the forest officers/officials wherein the allegations were levelled against the forest officers that they are not allowing their pet animals to grace in the permitted area of the reserve forest. Thus, it is also the defence of the petitioner that it is only as a counter blast this criminal case and other criminal case have been lodged against the petitioner.
This Court is of the considered view that while assessing the illegality of the order of the confiscating authority or the appellate authority the material/evidence available against the accused against whom allegations of cutting and possessing the prohibited trees are being levelled would also be seen and assessed in order to know the nature of evidence available against an accused person.
12. During the course of deliberations learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court a judgment dated 05.05.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 2059 of 2022 wherein while interpreting Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act emphasis was given on the requirement of application of mind by the confiscating authority as well as with regard to 'giving of reasons' while passing the confiscation order. It is also emphasized that Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act also provides to draw a satisfaction that a forest offence is believed to have been committed, which is a condition precedent.
13. I do not have any other view than expressed by the co-ordinate bench. It is to be recalled that recording of reasons in any judicial order or even in quasi judicial order is the sole and life of that order and if that order is denude of the reasons and application of mind, the same would become a dead order i.e. non-existent in law. A person whose prayer is being negated by passing a judicial order is having a right to know as to on what basis his prayer has been rejected by the Court or by adjudicating authority. The impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 is not containing any reasons at all and a perusal of this order would reflect that respondent no.3 under some illusion had caste the burden on the petitioner to disprove so far as the commission of offence is concerned and has also taken his criminal history against him. It appears to be an admitted situation that the petitioner is not a convict. Perusal of the order dated 25.04.2022 appears to have been passed without giving any reason and suggests total non-application of mind by the confiscating authority. Thus, having regard to the facts considered by this Court in totality, recorded herein-before, I am of the view that the impugned orders 15.11.2022 and 25.04.2022 may not be permitted to stand and are liable to be set-aside.
14. In view of above, the orders dated 15.11.2022 and 25.04.2022 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Regional Forest Officer, Sampoorna Nagar, Range Forest Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri are set-aside. The petition preferred by the petitioner is allowed.
15. It is directed that the Mahindra Tractor-trolley (Dunlop) attached therewith of the petitioner bearing registration No. U.P.26L/1225, Engine No. 006500170CI/007000186CI (Red), which is in the custody of the forest officers/officials shall be released forthwith in favour of the petitioner on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2 lacs and one surety to the satisfaction of same amount along with proof of ownership and also on giving a written undertaking to produce the said tractor-trolley before the Court as and when required and also that he will not change the look of the tractor and would not alienate or sell the same during the pendency of the criminal proceedings.
16. It is further provided that despite this Court has set-aside the orders passed by the confiscating authority or appellate authority, in case the petitioner is convicted of the alleged offences, the proceedings of confiscation may be again initiated by the forest authorities.
17. Observations made herein-above by this Court are only for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 7.1.2025
Praveen
