STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. FARIDA BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, by the State under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 15-7-99 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Criminal Revision No. 184/99 reversing the orders of confiscation of the truck.

(2.) SOMETIME in the midnight of 3-3-97 Deputy Ranger, Incharge of the Flying Squad, on a routine patrol duty, found a truck bearing registration No. CPO 7385 unlawfully carrying 8000 pieces of green bamboos. Since he had sufficient reason to believe commission of forest offence, he seized the truck from the possession of Mohammed Saleem, who is a husband of the respondent. The truck is registered in the name of respondent but she is only a benamidar and Mohammad Saleem is the actual owner of the same and it is he who carries on the business of transport from the said truck. Forest offence POR No. 629/2002 was registered and information in that regard was sent to the Authorised Officer and also to the Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, proceedings for confiscation of the truck were initiated as contemplated under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). Notices with regard to these proceedings were issued to the respondent, her husband Mohammad Saleem and also to other co-accused persons. Mohammad Saleem received the notice on 5-4-97 and thereafter he actively participated in the confiscation proceedings. He claimed himself to be the owner of the truck and stated that he has the power of attorney of the respondent for representing her in the proceedings and assured that he would produce the same within 2/3 days. His statement was recorded on 26-4-97 before the prescribed authority, who thereafter issued a notice on 10-5-97 by a registered post to the respondent informing her in detail about the confiscation proceedings of the truck and the assurance given by her husband Mohammad Saleem about submitting her power of attorney in his favour regarding the truck. It was requested to the respondent in the notice to give evidence in support of her case. The said notice was received by her on 15-5-97. On 10-6-97 Mohammad Saleem submitted a power of attorney dated 19-5-97 of the respondent before the prescribed authority stating that all actions done by her husband in the proceedings were acceptable to her. The prescribed authority, after considering the evidence and material on record, by order dated 21-6-97 directed for the confiscation of the truck. The respondent preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. Thereafter, she filed a criminal revision which has been allowed by the impugned order essentially on the ground that the respondent was not properly served with the notice of confiscation proceedings and as such she was denied proper opportunity to defend her case. According to the learned Judge, mandatory provisions of Section 52 (4) of the Act were not complied with.

(3.) SHRI Vivekanand Awasthy, learned Government Advocate, has strenuously argued that the provisions of Section 52 of the Act have been fully complied with and hence the impugned order of the Revisional Court is illegal. Shri Y. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the order under challenge.