STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DHANWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Himachal Pradesh questions legality of the judgment rendered by learned single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court holding that the petition filed by the State for revision under Ss. 397, 401 read with S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") was not maintainable. The said petition was directed against judgment dated 13-12-1993 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, in an appeal under S. 59(2) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short the Act) as amended by the Indian Forest (Himachal Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1991, (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act) as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the revision was not maintainable. Additionally, it was held that whether powers under S. 482 of the Code and Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short "the Constitution"), could be exercised need not be gone into as this is not a fit case where the power required to be so exercised.

(2.) Background facts giving rise to the present dispute essentially are as follows : On 12-10-1992, the Station House Officer, Nalagarh intercepted a truck bearing No. HIA-6947 at about 7.45 a.m. near the sale depot of Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation of Nalagarh Ram Shehar road. On search being carried out, 252 tins of resin were found being transported in the said truck. Out of the quantity found on search, 186 tins of resin bore the mark "MR-92" while 56 tins bore the mark "X." One Mast Ram who was travelling in the truck claimed that the tins belonged to him. On being required to produce the necessary export permit with regard to the articles, he failed to do so. Consequently, 252 tins of resin along with the truck were seized. Since forest offence was believed to have been committed in respect of the seized articles, which was considered to be the property of the State Government, a report to the Forest Officer, Nalagarh was made. On receipt of the report, the Authorised Officer issued notice to Mast Ram who claimed to be the owner of articles and Harcharan Singh and Dhanwant Singh, driver and owner of the truck respectively. The owner of the truck i.e. the present respondent submitted that no resin was carried and transported in his truck. In view of the materials on record and evidence led by the parties the Authorised Officer passed an order directing confiscating of the truck. The said order was assailed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Solan by way of an appeal. The appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 13-12-1993. It was held that order of the Authorised Officer was without jurisdiction. For arriving at such conclusion, learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that since offence was committed in respect of property, which according to the appellate Judge was not claimed to be States property despite the indisputable fact that there is a statutory presumption, as to such properties - forest produce being the properties of the State, the Authorised Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order. A revision was filed before the High Court. The respondent took preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision application on the ground that the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal under S. 59(2) was final in terms of the Amendment Act. It was pointed out that by Amendment Act certain amendments were carried out in the Act in its application to the State of Himachal Pradesh. By virtue of the Amendment Act Ss. 52(A) and (B) were inserted in the Act, so far as its application to the State of Himachal Pradesh are concerned w.e.f. 9-7-1991. Section 59 of the Act was also amended by insertion of sub-sections (2) and (3) thereto. Two new sections, namely, S. 59(A) and (B) were also inserted with reference to these provisions, more particularly, with reference to S. 59(B) it was submitted that the Amendment Act attached finality to the order passed by the Sessions Judge in appeal under S. 59(2). The High Court accepted the submission and held that the revision application was not maintainable. An alternative plea appears to have been advanced before the High Court which was to the effect that even if it is conceded for the sake of argument that revision was not maintainable, yet inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code and/or power of superintendence under Art. 227 of the Constitution was available. The High Court held that these powers though could be exercised, as no case is made out therefor there is no scope to do so in the case. It was further held that the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge was not wrong in any manner and did not suffer from any material illegality or irregularly to warrant exercise of jurisdiction under S. 482 of the Code or Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh submitted that the approach of the High Court was wrong. The statutory presumption regarding the ownership of the property by the State was available in terms of S. 69 of the Act. The trial Court proceeded on erroneous basis as if there was no dispute or claim made that the property belonged to the State. The presumption available under S. 69 was completely overlooked. In any event, this is a matter which required to be examined and the High Court without even indicating as to why it did not consider this to be a fit case by exercise of power under S. 482 of the Code or Art. 227 of the Constitution, in a summary manner held that the order of the trial Court did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. There is no response on behalf of respondent in spite of the service of notice. Since learned counsel for the appellant did not question the conclusion of the High Court that the revision before it was not maintainable, we need not consider this aspect, though on a reading of the relevant provisions the view of the High Court appears to be correct.