(1.) A joint application was moved by the revisionists Ravi shankar and Smt. Inderjeet Kaur for the release: of truck No. UTE 7959 on the ground that there is no provision for seizure of the truck and fire-wood loaded hereon, under the Forest Act. This application has been rejected by the Judicial Magistrate 1st, Bahraich, vide order dated 25-2-1983. Aggrieved by this order he revisionists preferred this revision.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a report dated 7-2-83 was submitted to the Court by one Ram Daras Singh, Forestor, Chandra Range, P. S. Nawabganj, district Bahraich. It was stated that on 5-2-83 at about 4 A. M. truck No. UTE 7959 was seized by him while it was carrying wood said to have been illegally felled and removed from the reserve forest. There were no valid papers for the transportation of the wood which was loaded on the aforesaid truck at the time it was apprehended, and stopped. It is alleged that two persons, viz. Kripa Ram and Sabit Ram scaped after jumping from the said truck but two other persons could not escape. They were apprehended. One of the apprehended persons namely Ravi Shankar applicant, claimed to be Driver of the truck while the other person, namely, Jeet Bahadur Singh claimed to be Cleaner of the truck. They were arrested at the spot and were handed over at police station Nawabganj where the first information report was lodged.
(3.) THE next question to be considered is whether the property seized will be liable to confiscation or not. Section 55 of the Forest Act provides that all timber or forest produce which is not the property of the Government and in respect of which a forest offence has been committed, and all tools, boats, carts and cattle in committing any forest offence shall be liable to confiscation. Subsection (2) of section 55 further provides that such confiscation may be in addition to any other punishment prescribed for such offence. THE word "carts" used in section 55 was substituted by the word "vehicles" by U. P. Act 21 of 1960 with effect from 2nd Nov. 1960. THEre thus remains no doubt that the vehicle in question will be liable to confiscation.