HAJARILAL Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICERDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of the following facts : Petitioner 1 owns a loading vehicle (Matador) bearing Registration No. CPF 9973 and carries on the business of carrier by hiring out the said vehicle. On 29-11-1982 the said vehicle was in charge of petitioner 2 who is the brother of petitioner 1 and was given on hire to one Shri Chiranjilal. The vehicle was checked by the officers of the Forest Department at Indore Checking Post. 86 logs of sagwan wood, which is a specified forest produce under the M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman): Adhiniyam, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act were found in the said vehicle, and were seized. The vehicle was also seized by the Checking Party, On 17-12-1982 the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhar respondent 1, passed an Order (Annexure 'A') determining Rs. 30,000/- as the value of the vehicle and further directing that if the said amount was not paid within 90 days, the vehicle will be treated to have been confiscated. Bv the said order respondent 1 levied a penalty of Rs. 2000/- on petitioner 2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners have not paid the aforesaid amount and they do not intend to pay the same. The petitioners have challenged the said order (An-nexure 'A') passed by respondent 1 in this petition on the ground that respondent 1 had no jurisdiction to pass the said order. The petitioners have also prayed that respondents be directed to restore the Matador Vehicle belonging to petitioner 1.

(2.) In the return it is stated that petitioner 2 and one Ramprasad were in the vehicle at the time of checking and that the vehicle contained 63 logs of timber of the category of specified forest produce. The remaining 23 logs which were less than 2 meters in leneth were not covered by the provisions of the State Act but action in respect of these logs was taken under the provisions of the Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). It is further stated that a case for the violation of the provisions of the State Act as also of the Central Act was registered against the petitioners as also against Ramlal and Ramprasad who submitted an application to the Forest Authorities proposing composition of the offences registered against them and for this purpose submitted the signed Rajinama Forms. Their proposal for composition of the offences was accepted by respondent 1 who in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 19 of the State Act as also under Section 68 of the Central Act passed the impugned order. It is further stated in the return that the value of the Matador has been estimated at Rs. 30,000/- and that the said Matador can be released on payment of the said amount by the petitioners. It is admitted that the amount of penalty imposed by respondent 1 has not been paid by the persons concerned. It is further stated in the return that report of the offence was lodged before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhar, on 4-12-1982, a copy of which is filed as Annexure R-I.

(3.) After the return was filed by the respondents, the petitioners filed a certified copy of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhar, rejecting the application of the petitioners for interim custody of the (Matador) vehicle on the ground that as the offences have been compounded and no enquiry or trial was pending before the Court, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the petitioners.