RAVI PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Poonam Srivastava, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A. for the State.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that the petitioner claims himself to be an unemployed person. He purchased a vehicle Pickup 207 from Tata Motors Ltd. on 7-2-2006 after taking financial assistance from a finance company. Finance document are annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The vehicle is registered in the name of the petitioner with the R. T. O. , Gorakhpur, vide registration No. U. P. 53-T 8233. The vehicle was ensured with oriental insurance company. Copy of the covering note is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The vehicle was being driven by the driver with the load of wood, which was being transported from one place to another. The police of P. S. Khorabad, District Gorakhpur, lodged First Information Report at case crime 832 of 2006 under Sections 379 and 411, I. P. C. read with Section 26 Forest Act and 3/28, Transit Act, on 16-9-2006 relating to the truck load of timber that was being transported. The petitioner was taken into custody being the owner of the vehicle. Original registration paper, was however. taken away by the police at the time of arrest. An application for release of the vehicle was moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 9- 10-2006. A report was called for and subsequently the application was rejected on 26-11-2006 for want of prosecution. No order was passed on merit. Therefore, another application was moved on 1- 12-2006 with the prayer for release of the vehicle. The application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, on the ground that the application is barred under Section 52-D, Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). This order was challenged in revision. The revisional Court dismissed the revision on 23-1- 2007. Both the orders are impugned in the instant writ petition with the prayer for a direction to respondents to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner subject to any condition as this Court may feel appropriate in the given circumstances.

(3.) AFTER hearing Counsels for the respective parties, it is clear that Chapter IX of the Act provides penalties and procedure of seizure and release of the goods. The forest officer of police officer is empowered to seize such goods, where there is reason to believe that forest offence has been committed in respect of forest produce. The seizure so permitted is in relation to tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, rope, chain and other articles. Section 52-A of the Act deals with manner of seizure and also empowers the concerned officer for its confiscation but no order can be passed without notice in writing from whom the property is seized. Section 52-A (5) imposes restriction that no order of confiscation of any tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or others article shall be made under sub- section (4) if the person is able to prove satisfaction that the article so seized was without his knowledge or connivance of without the knowledge of connivance of his servant or agent as the case may be.