RAMENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/petitioner has challenged the order of confiscation dated 27.1.2007 passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. District and Sessions Judge, Balaghat refusing quashment of the order dated 25.3.2006 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 10.10.2006 in the writ petition.

(2.) By the said orders the respondent/Forest Officer has confiscated the petitioner's machines known as Pokland Tata Machine (HitachiEx-60 (chain wheel drive) as well as Dumpers bearing registration No.MP26-D/3150 and MP23-D/5004 under Section 26 (1), 30 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Section 2 (2) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

(3.) The undisputed facts are that the petitioner's machines were seized by the Forest Officer on 24.11.2001 while they were found engaged in lifting Manganese Ore from mines in the forest area. On a complaint made by the Beat Officer of the Forest Department one Chhotelal and two other persons were found at the spot with the aforesaid vehicles. According to the Forest Authorities the contractor, who had hired the vehicles of the petitioner/appellant, in conspiracy with the petitioner was extracting Manganese Ore from Mines, for which, the Contractor did not have a valid permission from the Forest Department and that in any case, the extraction of the Ore was being made with the consent of the Contractor as well as the petitioner. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner and the driver as well as the labourers, who were present on the spot, under Section 26 (1), 30 and 33 of the Forest Act and Section 2 (2) of the Forest Protection Act. Thereafter, the matter was investigated into by the Forest Officer. In the meanwhile a criminal complaint, which was made to theJudicial Magistrate First Class, was decided and it was held that from the evidence on record the petitioner/appellant did not have any intention to indulge in any forest offence and there was no material on record to show that petitioner could be prosecuted under Section 26 (1) read with Section 30 and 33 of Forest Act. The petitioner/appellant was thus discharged.