KALYAN SINGH RAWAT Vs. DEPARTMENT OF FOREST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 26/10/2017 passed by ASJ, Karera, District Shivpuri in Criminal Revision No.145/2017 by which the order dated 20/09/2017 passed by JMFC, Karera, District Shivpuri in POR No.73/2011 has been affirmed. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the tractor of the applicant bearing registration No.MP32AA-5443 was found illegally transporting the sand and accordingly, the tractor was seized and offence under Sections 2 , 18 , 27 , 29 , 39(d) , 50 , 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Wild Life Protection Amendment Act , 2002 was registered. The investigation is still pending and the applicant filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC for release of tractor on Supurdignama. The Magistrate by order dated 20/09/2017 rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20/09/2017, passed by JMFC, Karera, District Shivpuri, the applicant filed a criminal revision which has been dismissed by order dated 26/10/2017 passed in Criminal Revision No.145/2017.

(2.) Challenging the orders passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the guilt of the applicant has not been established in the trial and until and unless a person is held guilty for committing the offence, the vehicle cannot be confiscated. It is further submitted that in fact, the applicant has been falsely implicated and his tractor was not transporting the sand illegally. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that illegal excavation of sand in the area is a menace not only to law and order situation but is a threat to the environment and marine life. Several tractors were seized which were illegally transporting the sand. The applicant was transporting the sand illegally without making payment of royalty and if the matter is not dealt with firmly, then it would not only deteriorate the law and order situation of the locality, but would also adversely affect the environment and marine life of the locality.

(3.) Heard the counsel for the parties. So far as the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the vehicle cannot be confiscated until and unless the applicant is convicted in the trial is concerned, the said submission has no substance being misconceived and is accordingly rejected. The Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer and another Vs. G.V. Sudhakar Rao and others reported in AIR 1986 SC 328 has held as under :-