MUKESH KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 12.4.2005 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 2436 of 1998. Relevant facts for disposal of the appeal briefly are that the appellant owns a Saw Mill at Pipariya. On 31.10.1991, the Divisional Forest Officer (General) Hoshangabad (DFO) with staff inspected the Saw Mill of the appellant and having found some teak -wood suspected to have been obtained illegally seized the same. Thereafter, an enquiry was made and an order dated 23.4.1992 was passed by the DFO, who is the licensing officer confiscating the Saw Mill of the appellant. Against the order of confiscation, the appellant filed an appeal before the Conservator of Forests. Hoshangabad Circle, but by order dated 3.10.1992, the Conservator of Forests dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1992 before the learned District Judge, Hoshangabad but by order dated 7.3.1998, the District Judge also dismissed the appeal. The appellant then filed Writ Petition No. 2436 of 1998 before this Court and the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 12.4.2005. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this Writ Appeal.

(2.) MR . K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the teak -wood that was seized in the Saw Mill of the appellant belonged to one Prem Shankar and in fact the Conservator of Forests in his appellate order dated 3.10.1992 has observed that the claim that the wood which was seized from the Saw Mill belonged to the land owner seems to be legitimate but no paper was produced in support of the claim. He further submitted that in view of this finding of the Conservator of Forests, the seized wood was returned to the appellant. He submitted that the only finding of the Conservator of Forests in the appellate order against the appellant was that the appellant had sawn the illicit forest wood without obtaining requisite documents and receipts as per rules to confirm the validity of the seized forest wood and the appellant had violated the provisions of the M.P. Kastha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 (for short Adhiniyam of 1984).

(3.) MR . Ashok Agrawal, learned Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that it would be clear from the orders passed by the DFO, the Conservator of Forests and the District Judge that the teak wood stored in the Saw Mill of the appellant had been obtained illegally and in contravention of the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1984. Sections 9,12 (1) and 13 (1) of the Adhiniyam of 1984, which are relevant for purposes of deciding this appeal, are quoted herein below: 9. Keeping of account of stock of wood in saw mill and saw pit - AH wood whether sawn or not, found in or brought to the saw mill or saw pit or at the site of sawing at any time or during any period by any person in any manner or by any means for purpose of sawing or for any other purpose shall always be properly accounted for and all relevant evidence documents, receipts, order and certificate as are necessary to show that the wood is legally obtained shall be maintained and made available at the time of inspection. It shall be presumed in respect of the stock of wood which is not accounted for satisfactorily that the same has been obtained unlawfully and the stock of wood which is not accounted for satisfactorily that the same has been obtained unlawfully and the stock of wood shall be liable for confiscation. Confiscation of saw mill, etc. - (1) Save as provided in clause (b) of Section 4 - (a) where a saw mill or saw pit is established or operated in an area declared to be a prohibited area under sub -section (1) of Section 5; or (b) Where a saw mill or saw pit is established or operated without a licence or without renewal of licence under sub -sections (2) and (4) respectively of Section 6; or (c) where the saw mill or saw pit is operated after suspension or revocation of a licence under sub -section (5) of Section 6; or (d) where saw mill or saw pit is operated with the aid of electrical energy or electrical installation in contravention of the provision of sub -section (1) of Section 10; or (e) unaccounted wood is stored in the saw mill or saw pit. The licensing officer may order confiscation of the stock of wood unlawfully stored with whole or portion of the plants and machinery, implements and equipments which have been used in the commission of the offence. Penalties: (1) If any person contravenes or attempt to contravene or abets the contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both and in the case of a continuing contravention, with an additional fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such conviction: Provided that (i) where such contravention, attempt or abetment relates to section 4, or (ii) when unlawful wood involved in the contravention is more than 5 cubic metres in volume, for the second or subsequence offence the minimum imprisonment in either case shall be three months and minimum fine in either case shall be three thousand rupees.