RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sr Prashant Mathur, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 5th January, 2006 passed by respondent No. 3 confiscating the Truck No. U. P. 78-B 0047 of the petitioner and the order dated 4th September, 2006 passed by the State of U. P. dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

(3.) BRIEF facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; officials of the Forest Department intercepted the aforesaid truck on 9th December, 2004 a 4. 00 a. m. , which was loaded with timber of Seesam and Babool trees. On Lallu Prasad Shukla, who claim to be the owner of the trees and the driver o the truck were found in the truck. The timber and the vehicle both were seizre and seizure memo was sent by the officials of the Forest Department to respon dent No. 3. A range case being Range Case No. 29 of 2004-05 was registered un der section 26 of the Forest Act, 1927. The petitioner is the owner of the truck who made an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate who directed release of the truck in favour of the petitioner. The Forest Department filed criminal revision challenging the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in which the revisional Court stayed the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Th petitioner subsequently appeared before respondent No. 3 and filed his objection claiming release of the truck. The petitioner in his objection claimed that he was given his truck to Lallu Prasad Shukla on hire for transporting trees belonging to his own field. Before the respondent No. 3 objection as well as affidavit was filed by the petitioner. One G. C. Tripathi, Forest Range Officer and one Ram Pyare, Forest Inspector appeared before respondent No. 3 as P. W. 1 and P. W. 2. The respondent No. 3 passed an order confiscating the truck tinder section 52-A of the Forest Act, 1927 as amended by U. P. Amendment. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, which has been dismissed by the State U. P. Challenging the aforesaid orders, present writ petition has been filed.