SITARA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order dated December 17, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri in Misc. Appeal No.1 of 2007 thereby affirming the order dated August 2, 2006 passed by the conservator of forests, Northern Circle and revisional authority, Jalpaiguri. The short fact is that the forest officer of District - Jalpaiguri and Siliguri sub-Division passed an order dated March 9, 2006 for confiscation of the vehicle being registration no.WB- 76/3501 belonging to the petitioner in relation to an offence under the Forest Act, 1927. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revisional application before the appropriate authority and the revisional application was rejected by an order dated March 9, 2006. Being aggrieved, the petitioner no.2 preferred the Misc. Appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with this application. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a handicapped lady. She was married; but she was deserted by her husband. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the vehicle in question with the money obtained by way of disposal of an immovable property. She took also a loan from a financial agency and thus she was getting her livelihood by plying that vehicle by a regular driver. But in absence of her regular driver on a particular day, she appointed one casual driver to carry the passengers from Siliguri to Darjeeling by that vehicle and in that way on April 8, 2005 the said casual driver left for Darjeeling with her vehicle.

(2.) Thereafter by the news of the CCN TV in the evening, she came to know that the vehicle had been seized with some forest logs. Then she tried to lodge a complaint with the concerned P.S. but she was not allowed to do so. That vehicle was the only source of income of the petitioner. She had no fault for knowledge about taking the forest logs by her vehicle by the said casual driver. So, the order of confiscation was wrong and the vehicle should be released in her favour instead of confiscation.

(3.) In support of his contention Mr. Chakraborty has referred to the decision reported in (1998) 1 Crimes 86(SC), (2005) 4 CHN 565 and (2005) 4 CHN 536. By referring to these decisions Mr. Chakraborty submits that when the owner of the vehicle had no knowledge about carrying the forest produce by her vehicle by the casual driver so appointed, the vehicle should be returned in view of the above decisions.