GEND LAL KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dtd. 13/5/2019 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Criminal Revision No.02/2014, whereby the criminal revision of the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 8/10/2010 at about 6 pm, one tractor bearing Registration No.CPL- 9287 Chasis No.P-12855 and trolley bearing Registration No.9034 was found carrying illegal 52 number of timber woods in Tamor Pingla Sanctuary Area, Sarguja Forest Circle, Ambikapur. The said vehicle was driven by driver Shyamlal and the owner of the vehicle namely Ramchandra Kushwaha was also present. After interrogation by the Forest Officer, an offence punishable under Ss. 27, 29, 31, 50 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Sec. 26 (1) (e) (f) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was registered against the driver and owner of the said vehicle bearing Forest Offence No.16091/2006 and thereafter the said vehicle including timbers was seized. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur. On 17/8/2012, after giving show cause notice to the petitioner regarding confiscation of the vehicle and finding the reply of the petitioner unsatisfactory, an order (Annexure-P/2) was passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the aforesaid vehicle was confiscated. Against the said order of confiscation, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.2, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 3/10/2013 (Annexure-P/3), against which the petitioner filed criminal revision before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Criminal Revision No.02/2014, which too has been dismissed vider order dtd. 13/5/2019 (Annexure-P/1). Hence, this present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused persons have been acquitted by the Criminal Court, thus no offence has been proved against the petitioner and therefore the proceeding of confiscation of the vehicle is illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that when the ingredients of the offence are not proved and the accused is acquitted of the charges, then the seized property is to be handed over to its owner, but the said aspect of the matter has not been considered while deciding the revision of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order may kindly be quashed and the vehicle be handed over to its owner.