PIJUSH KANTI MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the order dated the 7th November, 1992 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 1991 by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Jalpaiguri affirming the order of confiscation of the seized truck bearing No. WGV 5456 passed by the Authorised Officer, Jalpaiguri district and Divisional Forest Officers, Jalpaiguri division under section 59-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1972 as amended by the West Bengal Act XXII, 1988.

(2.) On 12th April, 1989 while petrolling on highways and roads the forest officials found that timber was being unloaded from the said truck which was standing in the Bazar area of Dowkimari village. On seeing the forest officials the unknown persons who were unloading timber from the said truck fled away leaving the truck and the timber behind. The forest officials found that one log of Chilauni was still lying in the truck and large quantity of timber was lying in heaps behind the truck. Jogans (used for loading and unloading purposes) were also found at the spot. All those things including the truck were seized by the forest officials. Subsequently, the present petitioner, Pijush Kanti Mondal filed a petition to the Range Officer claiming the seized truck as his own. One Shri Dhirendra Chandra Sarkar also filed a petition to the said Range Officer claiming the seized jogans and stating that the jogans were taken from him by the labourers of the truck seized at the spot. However nobody claimed the seized timber. A total of 60 logs of different kinds including Chilauni, Chikrassi etc. were seized along with the truck. Although initially the petitioner Pijush Kanti claimed to be the registered owner of the seized vehicle, subsequently however-be changed his version and divulged, that one Bimal Chandra Kar and one Sukumal Kar were the registered owners of the truck and he looked after the said truck. Subsequently however a power of attorney in respect of the truck was executed by Bimal Chandra Kar and Sukumal Kar in favour of Pijush Kanti Mondal and it was projected that the vehicle was sold by them to Pijush Mondal about 8/9 months before its seizure and it was being used by Pijush Mondal for hire and commercial purposes and the income from the vehicle was being utilised by Pijush Mondal himself and the vehicle was not under the control of the Kars in any way. Bimal Kar also stated before the Authorised Officer that he had no objection if the vehicle was confiscated. On considering the evidence and the materials on record both the Authorised Officer and Appellate Court (the Additional District Judge) found that the vehicle in question carried without proper authority forest produce obtained by illicit means. Sitting in the revisional jurisdiction I find no valid reason to interfere with the finding of facts arrived at by the Authorised Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Court.

(3.) Sub-section (3) of section 59-A, which section has been inserted by the West Bengal Amendment Act in the Indian Forest Act runs thus :