STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. KISAN GENU PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the State of Maharashtra and is directed against an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1985. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was dealing with an order dated 23-10-1985 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Satara, rejecting the application of the present respondent for the release of his truck and trolley which had been seized by the officers of the Forest Department and was liable for confiscation. The truck No. MTM 4231 and the trolley No. MTL 7291 had been seized by the Range Forest Officer, Mobile Squad, Satara on 7-8-1985. Admittedly, at the time when the vehicles were seized, there was no forest produce being carried in either of them. The admitted position is that the vehicles were found empty and were parked in front of the respondents residence. The record shows that a few days earlier, on or about 3rd of August 1985, that the officers of the Forest Department apprehended two persons while carrying teak wood that had been obtained through illicit felling. These persons were arrested as also some of their accomplices. In the course of the investigation, the statements came to be recorded of these persons as also of the owner of a nearby saw-mill and it is the case of the department that all these persons are alleged to have stated that the truck and trolley in question were used for the transport of timber. It is on this basis that the Range Forest Officer seized the vehicles under a panchnama on 7-8-1985.

(2.) IN the course of the enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the present respondent in his capacity as owner of the vehicles. The respondent filed his reply and contended that no ground had been made out for seizure of the vehicles belonging to him. The D. F. O. recorded the statements of other persons in the course of the enquiry and recorded a finding that the statements of all the persons, recorded by him, unequivocally indicate that the present two vehicles were being regularly used for the transport of timber and that consequently, the vehicles were liable for confiscation in so far as according to the D. F. O. they form the subject matter of the offence in question, insofar as they were used in the commission of the offence.

(3.) MRS. Keluskar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that this Court should take a very strict view of any offences relating to the Forest Act, particularly in view of the wanton depletion of the forest wealth and in view of the extreme difficulties experienced by the department in combating such offences. She further contended, that in the present case, where the investigation indicated that the two vehicles had been regularly used for the transport of timber, that the D. F. O. was wholly justified in having ordered the confiscation of the vehicles. There can be no quarrel with regard to the proposition put forward by Mrs. Keluskar and it is equally true that a stringent view is required to be taken in respect of the commission of offences particularly under the Forests Act. These offences are penal offences and consequently, this Court will also have to be guarded in its approach in so far as a very high degree of proof and strict compliance with the principles relating to the proof of offences will have to be complied with before an adverse finding can be recorded.