Bombay High Court
Authorized Officer And Asst. ... vs Rohit S/O. Laxmanrao Bolenwar And ... on 15 September, 2017
Bench: P.N. Deshmukh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.268 OF 2017.
PETITIONERS: 1. Authorized Officer and Assistant
Conservator of Forest, Divisional Forest Office,
Pandharkawada, Tq.Kelapur, Distt.Yavatmal.
2. Range Forest officer, Parwa,
Tq.Ghatanji, Distt.Yavatmal.
3. State of Maharashtra,
through Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS: 1. Rohit s/o Laxmanrao Bolenwar,
aged 37 years, Occu: Business, R/o
Rana Pratap Ward, Pandharkawada,
Tq. Kelapur, Distt.Yavatmal.
2. Ayyaj Ramzan Sheikh,
aged 31 years, Occu: Business,
r/o Rana Pratap Ward, Pandharkawada,
Tq. Kelapur, Distt.Yavatmal.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mrs.Geeta Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for the petitioners.
Mr.N.J.Autkar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: P.N.DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned counsel of both the parties.
2. Challenge in this petition is to impugned order dated 4th
February, 2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur in
Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2016, by which Truck bearing registration
No.MH-29/9949, which was confiscated in a forest offence No.13/02,
registered by petitioner no.2 came to be quashed and set aside, thereby
directing delivery of said truck to respondent no.1.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contented that
learned appellate court has not considered facts of the case involved in
the present petition in its true perspective by not considering the fact
that the truck came to be confiscated by the authorized officer on
following due procedure under the law and has further erred by not
considering the fact that the basic purpose of confiscation of vehicle
involved in forest offence is to curb said offences and the impugned
order does not discuss any such reason for releasing of truck and that as
to what is the error committed by the Officer confiscating said truck
which was found carrying teak wood logs illegally, in violation of
previsions of Indian Forest Act, 1927. It is, therefore, contended that as
trial Court has not considered the facts on record and held that the
confiscation of vehicle was not proper as respondent no.1 had no
intention to commit such offence, and thus, submitted that order needs
to be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 on the other hand has
supported the impugned order and has submitted that the learned
Appellate Court has duly considered the record and had observed that
respondent no.1 had no intention on his part to commit any offence nor
at the time of interception of said truck by the Officers of the petitioner
department, respondent no.1 was present. It is therefore submitted that
respondent no.1 since is not found involved in the forest offence,
petitioners cannot be said to have established their case requiring
confiscation of respondent no.1's truck. It is further submitted that
respondent no.1 along with driver, though were prosecuted in the forest
offence, respondent no.1, was acquitted and respondent no.2 was
convicted and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. It is,
therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed.
5. In the light of submissions advanced as aforesaid, to
understand the controversy involved in this petition, following facts in
brief are necessary to be stated.
Respondents are accused in forest offence No.13/02
registered by petitioner no.2 on 9th March, 2014 and one truck bearing
registration No.MH-29/9949 owned by respondent no.1 came to be
seized in above offence since was found involved in it. Said truck was
found loaded with 152 teak wood logs being transported illegally. It
appears to be the case of petitioner Department that out of said 152
teak wood logs, 120 logs were having valid transit pass issued for their
transport by petitioner no.2 and for transporting excess 32 teak wood
logs, Regular Criminal Case No.15 of 2015 was instituted against the
respondents before the competent Court of Magistrate at Ghatanji for
the offence punishable under Sections 41, 42, 52 and 61-A of the Indian
Forest Act, 1927 and Rules 31, 82 read with Sections 379, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Section 66 of Bombay Transport Rule
1942, which has resulted in acquittal of respondent no.1 while
respondent no.2 is imposed with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for seven days.
6. From the order impugned it is found that out of total number
of teak wood logs transported in the truck as aforesaid, said truck was
found carrying 32 number of logs without having valid transit pass and
out of them 8 teak wood logs were not having hammer marks. So far as
non finding of hammer marks on 8 teak wood logs, it appears to be the
case of respondent no.2 that though they were having such marks, they
were damaged to some extent and therefore were not properly seen and
thus, it is not the fact that 8 number of logs were not having hammer
marks at all. In view of facts as aforesaid and having considered the
status of respondent no.1, who is owner of the truck, the learned
appellate court from the record had found that 8 teak wood logs which
were stated to be having unclear hammer marks belonged to
respondent no.2 and role of respondent no.1 is limited, inasmuch as he
being owner of the truck cannot be attributed to have knowledge of
loading of any such 8 number of teak wood logs without or faint
hammer mark. Inspite of same, the authorized Officer finding that 8
number of teak wood logs were having no hammer marks, which were
owned by respondent no.2, held that said respondent has transported
the same in the vehicle without taking proper care and as such,
contravened the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927. Learned
appellate Court, in the impugned order has held that findings with
regards to seizure and confiscation of wooden logs are incorrect. It is
noted that in the instant case there is no challenge sofar as confiscation
of wooden logs are concerned. Involvement of truck which is seized
and then confiscated, only is thus required to be considered if it is
within the framework of law. On considering this aspect, respondent
no.1 in his reply appears to have come out with case that before
allowing loading of said truck or before allowing the same for
transporting goods, he had personally verified the transit pass, along
with documents of goods to be loaded in the truck and as such, he had
got himself satisfied about the transit pass and goods and has thereafter
allowed the truck to be hired by respondent no.2 for carrying teak
wood. Therefore, it is found that respondent no.1 had no personal
knowledge in respect of teak wood logs, much less in respect of 8 teak
wood logs, having no hammer mark on them, if they were found
carrying or were carried in the vehicle owned by him. In view of case of
respondent no.1 as discussed above, it goes without saying that there is
nothing to hold that said respondent had intention to commit any such
offence, in contravention to the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 by
intentionally carrying teak wood in his vehicle illegally.
Even the learned judge, who had dealt with criminal case
involving present offence, has acquitted respondent no.1 finding that no
charge levelled against him is established. In view of facts as aforesaid,
it is thus found that there are no reasonable or proper grounds which
are sufficient to pass order of confiscation of truck though from the
enquiry conducted by authorized officer it appears that there was
sufficient material sofar as confiscation of forest produce is concerned,
which consist of 8 teak wood logs owned by respondent no.2. In the
circumstances, the petition is liable to dismissed. Hence th following
order.
Petition is dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE
chute
