MANOJ KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HARDWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) The writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage after hearing the parties, counsel at length.

(3.) Tata Truck No. 407, registration No. UP 10A/5336 was Intercepted by forest authorities of district Hardwar and it was found that wood was being unauthorisedly transported. A case under Section 26 (f), 41/42, of the Forest Act was registered. The present revisionist, Manoj Kumar, moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, for release of the vehicle and the learned Magistrate by order, dated 29.1.97 allowed the application for release on certain conditions mentioned in the order. The forest authorities did not release the vehicle in compliance of the order dated 29.1.97. Therefore, application dated 5.2.97 was moved on which the learned Magistrate passed the order, dated 5.2.97 issuing show cause notice to the forest authorities for non-compliance of the order, dated 29.1.97. The forest authorities submitted their reply dated 5.2.97 stating that the registered owner never appeared before them and, therefore, the compliance could not be made. On 6.2.97 Forest Officer, Roorkee Range moved another application stating that the said vehicle was involved in another case under the Forest Act in Crime No. 69/96-97 and in this respect photocopy of the report of Forest Officer, Khanpur, was being submitted. The petitioner moved another application dated 10.2.97. This application was opposed by the forest authorities on the ground that the vehicle was also used earlier and was involved in The learned Magistrate observed in his order that the vehicle was being used repeatedly in commission of the crime and hence rejected the same. He also fixed a date for disposal of the confiscation application moved by the forest authorities. On 2.4.97 the learned Magistrate passed another order observing that the vehicle was involved in an offence under the Forest Act which occurred in the night of 21/22.1.97 and offences committed on 3.1.97 and 16.1.97 and this is the same truck which was intercepted by the forest authorities on 25.1.97. It was also observed in the order that the truck was seized earlier and released by the court but it was being repeatedly used in commission of the crime and, therefore, another application for release of the vehicle was rejected.