MOHANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought to indirectly challenge and put to naught the order dated 6/2/1991 of Dy. Conservator of Forest and the judgment and order dated 20th January, 1992 of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 1991 whereby truck No. GTO 2668 was ordered to be confiscated and the appeal therefrom was dismissed. Petitioner was not a party to the first confiscation proceedings.

(2.) On 12/6/1985, Range Forest Officer had caught the said truck for its involvement in illegally carrying the wood stolen from forest area. After seizure of the truck, the registered owner, respondent No.4 herein, had approached this Court and obtained interim relief on 26/7/1985 of releasing the truck on executing a bond and furnishing security. Thereafter the truck is stated to have been sold to the present petitioner on 15/9/1989 and transfered in his name on 16/1/1990. On the other hand, the Dy. Conservator of Forest held proceedings under the provisions of sections 61-A and 61-B of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by Gujarat Amendment vide Act 15 of 1960 and Act 19 of 1983 (for short ?the Act?) and ordered confiscation of the truck by the order dated 6/2/1991 after affording to the original owner requisite opportunity of being heard by issuing notice dated 13/9/1990. The original owner had only made a written representation before the Dy. Conservator, without mentioning anything about transfer of the truck. Such transfer, in any case, would have violated the bond executed by him. Thereafter the present petitioner challenged that order in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1991 before the learned Sessions Judge, Surat and contended that, at the relevant time, the truck owned by the original owner was purchased by him on and from 27/3/1990 and that he had paid Rs.2,23,501/- as price for the truck involved in theft of the goods. Learned Sessions Judge noted that no writing regarding transfer of the truck was found on record and, on the basis that the appellant had failed to take all necessary precautions against the use of the truck in committing a forest offence, confirmed the order of confiscation.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.A.D.Shah appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that learned Sessions Judge has decided the appeal as if petitioner were the owner of the truck at the time the offence was committed and the truck was caught. He submitted that learned Sessions Judge lost sight of the fact that it was after five years of the seizure of the truck that it had come to be transferred to the petitioner and, as a bona fide purchaser of the truck, without notice of the pendency of any proceedings, he was entitled to protection of his proprietary rights even as the original owner could be prosecuted, punished and the security furnished by him encashed for violation of the conditions of the bond. He submitted that the petitioner could not be punished for default or offence committed by the original owner.