DILDAR MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE trial facts giving rise to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution are as follows:-

(2.) IN the return the respondents contended that the petitioner was running the saw mill without obtaining any 'icence therefor and in contravention of Rule 27 of the Transit Rules. 1961. framed under the provisions of Section 41 of the Central Act. it was further contended that the saw machines were liable to confiscation under Section 55 of the Central Act and that the timber seized from the premises of the petitioner was the property of the Government being specified forest produce. It was also slated in the return that respondent 2 had jurisdiction under Section 19 of the State Act to pass the impugned order and the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in this petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if the petitioner did not get himself registered under Section 11 of the State Act as a manufacturer and used specified forest produce as a raw material or contravened any provision of the State Act respondent 2 had no jurisdiction to seal the saw machines of the petitioner and to direct that the same shall be released on payment of Rs. 10. 000 by the petitioner and to impose the penalty of Rs. 100 on, the petitioner. According to him the provisions of Section 19 of the State Act are not applicable because the offences under the State Act were not compounded by the petitioner. He further contended that the saw machines were not property liable to be confiscated and therefore respondent 1 had no power to determine their value and to direct the petitioner to pay the same to respondent 2. So that the machines may be released.