STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MOHD IDRIS UMARBHAI MEMON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 1.2.96 in Cr. Appeal No.48/95 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara. Heard learned special counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for first respondent.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows :- THE first respondent is a trader in bamboo mattings. It appears that he had purchased some bamboo mattings and transported them on 3.5. 95 by taking a pass from the Forest Department. By using the same pass, he again transported 170 bundles of bamboo mattings, which came to be intercepted by the police. Since there was no transport pass for transporting the bamboo mattings, police handed over the seized truck MP-23/b-4345 alongwith bamboo mattings to the concerned Forest Officer. THE Range Forest Officer, in turn seized the same under Panchnama. He recorded the statement of first respondent. After making enquiry, he submitted a report to the Authorised Forest Officer for confiscation of the goods and for prosecuting the first respondent and others. Since it was found that the owner of the truck had no knowledge of the truck being used for committing forest offence, the Range Forest Officer made a report that the truck may be released to the owner. It appears that the first respondent and others agreed to compound the offence and pay penalty. Accordingly, the Authorised Forest Officer passed an order dated 30.5.95 forfeiting the seized bamboo mattings and ordered the first respondent to pay a penalty or compensation in a sum of Rs. 500/- for transporting bamboo mattings without a transit pass. Even the truck driver and the truck cleaner were also directed to pay some compensation in lieu of prosecution. THE truck was ordered to be released to the owner. Being aggrieved by the order of confiscation of bamboo mattings, the first respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge has based his finding mainly on the ground that there is double jeopardy in first respondent being asked to pay compensation and further the goods being confiscated, which is contrary to section 300 Cr. P. C. THE learned Sessions Judge has observed that this procedure adopted by the Authorised Forest Officer amounts to punishing the offender doubly, which is illegal and contrary to the explicit bar provided in Section 300 Cr. P. C. In our view, this reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge is fallacious. His placing reliance on section 300 Cr. P. C. is misplaced. Section 300 Cr. P. C. provides that a person once convicted or acquitted should not be tried for the same offence again. In the present case, it is nobody's case that the first respondent was tried and was convicted or acquitted and again he is being tried for the same offence. We are unable to see as to how the learned Sessions Judge observed that this is a case of fresh trial in respect of accused, who has been once acquitted or convicted. In fact, the first respondent has not been prosecuted before the Criminal Court for committing this offence to invoke section 300 Cr. P. C. What has happened is that the first respondent has pleaded guilty or in other words admitted the offence and sought composition of the offence, which is permissible in law. It is an admitted case that the first respondent had no transport pass for transporting the goods on 5.5. 95. THE one pass he had was for transporting the goods on 3.5. 95 and that too for a particular quantity. That pass could be used for transporting the goods on only one day and that too on 3.5. 95. Admittedly, there was no pass to transport the goods on 5.5. 95. Further the quantity of goods shown in the pass dated 3.5. 95 is less than the quantity that is seized in this case. Further from the statement of first respondent, recorded during the enquiry it is seen that he had already transported the goods once on 3.5. 95 on the basis of the pass that day and by using the same pass, he transported one more consignment on 5.5. 95, when the lorry with goods was seized. In these circumstances, the first respondent admitted his offence and wanted composition of the offence. THE learned Authorised Forest Officer granted composition of the offence and directed the first respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 500/-and also ordered confiscation of the goods. What the learned Sessions Judge points out is that for the same offence, there can not be composition of the offence and further confiscation of the goods since it amounts to double jeopardy.