State Of Chhattisgarh vs Vinod Kumar Agrawal
2021 Latest Caselaw 737 Chatt

                                          -1-




                                                                            NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             WP(227) No. 2174 of 2009
                            Order Reserved on 23.6.2021
                            Order Passed on 30.6.2021
State of Chhattisgarh, through Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Lailunga, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ---- Petitioner
                                        Versus
Vinod Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Dhajaram Agrawal, R/o. Pattalgaon, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ---- Respondent

For the Petitioner/ State : Ms. Hamida Siddique, Dy. A.G.

For the Respondent : Mr. Faiz Kazi, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

CAV Order

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been

brought being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2008 passed by the

learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision

Case No. 147 of 2008.

2. The respondent is the registered owner of truck bearing registration

No.C.G. 10/A-0788, which was seized on 11.4.2006 by the Forest

Officers in Forest Range, Lailunga, District Raigarh as the alleged truck

was being used for transportation of coal which is a forest offence and

the raiding party had caught the activity of loading in the truck on the

spot. The proceeding to confiscate the truck seized in the connection of

commission of Forest offence was initiated by the Divisional Forest

Officer, Lailunga, under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. After

giving the opportunity for hearing to the parties, the final order was

passed on 16.1.2008, by which the seized truck and the load of coal on

that truck was confiscated in favour of the State Government. The

respondent then preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and

Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur. This appeal was dismissed by the

Appellate Authority. Criminal Revision No. 147 of 2008 was then

preferred by the respondent, before the Sessions Court, which has been

decided by the impugned order dated 22.11.2008. It is also submitted

by counsel for the petitioner, that the order of confiscation passed by the

Divisional Forest Officer, Lailunga was upheld by the Conservator of

Forest and both were sustainable orders. Learned Sessions Court has

exceeded the jurisdiction of revision to make reassessment of the facts

and hold that the order of Divisional Forest Officer was un-lawful on this

ground, that the procedure provided for confiscation was not followed by

the Divisional Forest Officer while passing the order of confiscation.

3. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Kerala High Court in the

case of Abdul Salam vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Others,

reported in 2019 SCC Online Ker 17249, in which citing the judgment

of Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Mahua

Sarkar, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 763, it was held that it is the burden

of the owner that the vehicle was being used without his knowledge and

connivance without which he has no relief. Similarly, it has been held in

the case of Sukham Bai vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in W.P.

No.3369 of 2005 decided on 24.3.2014 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court, that the High Court has limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India and it cannot reassess the evidence and draw a

different conclusion, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable

and it is prayed that this petition be allowed and relief be granted to the

petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions and

submits, that firstly in this case there is no jurisdiction under Article 227

of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the learned Sessions

Judge has very correctly passed the order and set aside the order of the

prescribed Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Forest Lailunga. No

error has been committed by the Court below. It is also submitted that

in the case of Union of India, Representing the Union Territory of

Tripura vs. Abdul Jalil and Others, reported in AIR 1965 SC 147, it

was held that there is a pre-requisite for conviction under Forest Act,

1927, that the place of commission of such offence is notified under

Section 4 of the Act, 1927. In this particular case, the petitioner has

failed to prove, that the spot from where the seizure of the truck was

made was a notified area under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act,

1927. The judgment in the case of State of Tripura vs. Raimohan

Ghosh, reported in 1972 Cri. Law. Journal 706 has also been relied

upon. The claim of the petitioner that the place was a part of the

reserved forest, is nowhere mentioned. It is further submitted that the

petition has become infructuous because of passage of time. The

seized truck was registered in the year 2001 and after receiving the

possession of the truck, the same has been disposed of by the

respondent, therefore, the respondent is not aware of the whereabouts

of the truck. It was held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal in

W.P.C. No. 4608 of 2007, by order dated 16.1.2020 that even though

the case was fit to be remanded, but the seizure of the vehicle was

made about 22 years before the date of that order and there was all

likelihood, it may have rotten and became useless, therefore, this Court

refused to remand the case to the authority. The same is the situation

here and more than 20 years have passed since the seizure of truck

was made, therefore, by now the truck must have lost its value. Hence,

in case this Court finds this case fit to be remanded, then such remand

will serve no purpose and will not be of any benefit to the petitioner,

therefore, this petition be disposed off.

5. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents present

on record.

6. Considered the submissions. The order of confiscation dated 16.1.2008

mentions that the seizure of the truck was made from the Forest

Compartment No. 526. This was never challenged by the respondent,

therefore, the respondent cannot raise a new ground at this stage and it

appears from the perusal of the confiscation order, that all the

procedures under the Act, 1927 were followed before passing the order

of confiscation. Hence, the submissions of the State Government have

force on which basis, the matter can be given consideration for grant of

relief. The factual situation present today cannot be ignored. It is a fact

that the seizure of vehicle was made about 20 years before. The

respondent side submits that the respondent is not in possession of that

vehicle any more subsequent to its release in his favour.

7. In these circumstances, if the execution of confiscation order is initiated

that will be a fruitless exercise or even if it is fruitful that may not be any

benefit to the State or the Forest Department, therefore, on this basis,

and taking into consideration the factual aspects of the case the present

petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

Nimmi