DINESH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Competent Authority rejected the application without adverting to relevant considerations in the matter of grant of interim custody swayed by an erroneous assumption of law that it is beyond its jurisdiction to grant interim custody. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle and machinery was confiscated as early as in the year 2009 and now, the matter having been remanded for fresh consideration after four years, it would be proper to release the vehicle and machinery rather than allowing it to be junked and of no use to anyone. In that event, even if the confiscation proceedings end up in favour of the petitioner, the vehicle and machinery would become rot. He further submits that the petitioner is a contractor working with the Government Department for which the vehicle and machinery are required for various construction works. If the vehicle and machinery are made available in the interim custody, the petitioner is prepared to give an undertaking that the vehicle and machinery shall be submitted before the authority as and when directed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner was prima facie found to have committed forest offence and the vehicle/machinery having been found involved, were seized by the forest officials in the year 2009. He further submits that if the vehicle and machinery are released on interim custody to the petitioner, the vehicle and machinery may again be misused and may not be made available for confiscation in future. He also submits that the confiscation authority does not have jurisdiction to release the vehicle on interim custody.