ABDUL RAWOOF Vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the facts are common and the issue involved in these two petitions are common, they are clubbed together and a common order is passed after hearing the learned counsel on both the sides.

(2.) Aggrieved by the orders passed under Section 71-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1903, (1964) the petitioners preferred appeals to the Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Criminal Misc. Appeals 3/87 and 4/87 contending that (1) the orders of confiscation are illegal and arbitrary, (2) the confiscations are without jurisdiction as the authority is not empowered under the Act to confiscate, (3) when the evidence of transportation of forest produce not established, there should not have been confiscation, (4) even if the transportation of forest produce is proved at best fine should have been levied instead of confiscating the vehicles and (5) the orders of confiscation are arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Both the appeals came to be clubbed by the learned Sessions Judge for the purpose of convenient disposal. After hearing the appellants therein and also the Authorised Officer who passed the orders of confiscation, the learned Sessions Judge posed the following two points for his consideration:-

(3.) Mr. Kashinatha Rao Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that (1) the order of remand made by the learned Sessions Judge is one without jurisdiction; (2) nowhere in Section 386, Cr. P.C. it is stated that if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the order challenged therein is incorrect one the same shall be remitted. All that it can do is to dismiss the appeal or reverse or alter the order under appeal. There cannot be any remand. According to him, Section 71 -D of the Forest Act is identical to Section 386, Cr. P.C.; (3) when the alleged transportation of sandal wood in the vehicles in question is not proved, the confiscations were illegal; (4) that the Sessions Judge should have taken into consideration whether the Authorised Officer is empowered to confiscate or not; (5) that in similar circumstances where transportation of forest produce was not proved, this Hon'ble Court had held in Criminal Revision Petition No. 366/87, disposed of on 23-8-1988 Satinderpal Bhandari v. Deputy Conservator of Forests, that the confiscation of vehicle was illegal, wherein it is held as follows:-