STATE OF M P Vs. BHANU PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to an order dated 16-6-2006 passed by first Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Revision No. 157/2008; whereby, the Revisional Court while affirming the order passed by the appellate Authority under Section 52-A of the Forest Act, 1927, has directed the release of the truck which seized being involved in the forest offence.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell are that the vehicle (truck) bearing No. UP 42/t 2007 on 27-10-2006 was seized at Haddi Hill at Ghateha Beat when the same was found loading metallic stone (gitti) in Compartment No. P-275 of forest Compartment Barha Koodi, 40 meter inside State of U. P. Border. Forest offence under POR No. 10784/15 was registered and the said vehicle was seized along with implements like jhoomar, spades, hammer etc. used for breaking stones. The Authorised Officer/sub-Divisional Officer, Rewa, after following the procedure under Section 52 of the Act of 1927, i. e. , sending intimation to the chief Justicial Magistrate, Rewa Teothar and show-cause notice to the owner and driver of the truck and after recording evidence passed an order of confiscation on 30-11-2007 having the vehicle involved in violating the Sections 30 (c), 32, 33 (b), 52 (1) and (2) of Forest Act, 1927. The said order of confiscation was challenged before the Appellate Authority/conservator of forest, Rewa under Section 52-A of the Act of 1927. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 17-3-2008 set aside the order of confiscation and remitted the matter to the Authorised Officer for a fresh decision on merit. This order was subjected to challenge by the respondent invoking Section 52-B of the Act of 1927 by filing Criminal Revision before the First Additional Sessions Judge, rewa. The Revisional Court while affirming the order of remand passed by the appellate Authority, directed the petitioner herein to release the vehicle in question on furnishing of bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- by the respondent. This order was passed on the ground that the vehicle was wearing away and that the offence was compoundable.

(3.) THE petitioner assails the order on two counts.