UMASHANKAR USRETE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order-dated 30/6/2001 in Criminal revision no. 44/2000 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni by which the order passed by the appellate Authority annexure P/2 dated 23. 6. 2000 was affirmed.

(2.) THE learned counsel submitted that the competent authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner in reply explained that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and that all reasonable and necessary precautions were taken against the use of the vehicle for commission of any forest offence. The competent authority vide order 23. 7. 1999 Annexure P/1 after appreciating the evidence produced before him found that the forest produce was transported without his knowledge and connivance and he had taken all the precautions for use of the said vehicle in the forest offence. The order passed by the competent authority Annexure P/1 was challenged by the Range Officer, Kanhiwada before the Conservator of Forest, who happens to be the appellate authority under section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The appellate authority-issued notices to the petitioner and by reversing the finding of the competent authority found that the petitioner failed to prove that the vehicle was used without his knowledge and connivance by his servant and directed confiscation of the vehicle. The order passed by the appellate authority was assailed by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, seoni which was decided by order Annexure P/5 by the Second Additional Sessions judge, Seoni on 30. 6. 2001.

(3.) BEFORE the revisional authority, the petitioner"s contention was that such appeal was not maintainable before the appellate authority as under Section 52-A of the Act only an appeal is provided against an order of confiscation but the revisional court turned down the aforesaid contention in paras 8 to 13 of the order and dismissed the revision. It is submitted that under Section 52-A of the Act, no such appeal is provided to the Range Officer. Apart from this, the Range Officer was not a person aggrieved as provided under Section 52-A of the Act. Reliance is placed to judgment of the Apex Court in Adi Pherozshah Gandhi vs. H. M. Seervai, AIR 1971 SC 385 and submitted that this petition be allowed and the orders passed by the Revisional Court and the appellate authority may be set aside.