SIBTE HASAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, which is a Truck, bearing Registration No. UP-22-T-3002. The said Truck is shown to have been seized by the police on account of the fact that it was carrying Biroja and the documents in relation to the permit for carriage of the said article, which was possessed by the Driver of the vehicle Nazim Ali was later on found to be the fraudulent and manipulated documents and thus this amounted to be the reason for seizure of the truck for offence under the Indian Forest Act and the allegation was the manufacturing of fraudulent documents. In relation to it, which, the petitioner contends that he has got no role to play for the reasons being that according to the case as pleaded by him in the writ petition as well as before the Courts below was that when the truck was returning empty, the driver of the vehicle had sought permission from the owner/petitioner on telephone seeking permission on phone for carrying the Biroja, which was granted to him on the telephone by the petitioner.

(2.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the act of carrying the Biroja is not legally barred under any law. The only action which has been taken by virtue of the lodging of the F.I.R No. 73/2013, it was under Sections 420, 468, 467 and 471 of the IPC lodged at Police Station Lalkuan, District Nainital, it was on account of the alleged fraudulent permits and ravana, which the driver produced and which were found in possession of the driver, which, according to him, these were the documents which were handed over to him by the owner of the articles, which was being sought to be transported by the truck, in question. Either the driver or the petitioner were not at all instrumental in the manufacturing of the documents, which were later on found to be fraudulent document and the reason for seizure of truck.

(3.) Ever since, the seizure of the truck, the petitioner had filed several applications for release of the vehicle before the Prescribed Authority/ Divisional Forest Officer, Tarai Eastern Forest Division, Haldwani, District Nainital, which was registered as Case No. 25/42/Doli/2012-13. The application, thus filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle was rejected by the Prescribed Authority for the alleged involvement of the vehicle, in question, for commission of the offence under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 for the offences as contemplated under Sections 26, 41, 42 and 52 of the said Act. On an appeal preferred by the petitioner as against the order of rejection dated 3rd June, 2013 by respondent No.3, the same stood affirmed and appeal of the petitioner, being Appeal No. 3 of 2013/Terai Poorvi Van Prabhag, Haldwani preferred under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 19th July, 2013. Consequently, the present Writ Petition, challenging the two judgments and other reliefs. The petitioner sought the following reliefs in the Writ Petition :