PRATIMA GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing stems from an application under section 401 read with section 482 Cr. PC filed by the petitioners praying for revision of the order dated 25.02.97 passed by the ld. Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri in Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 10/94 affirming the order dated 08.06.94 passed by the ld. authorized officer confiscating the seized vehicle No. WBS-3719 together with produce seized in connection with Forest Case No. 392/MPP-I.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the above application are that during patrolling at Mahakal Chaupatti by Pabitra Mondal, Deputy Field Director, Buxa Tigar Reserve along with Forest Guards Kartick Nandi and Bibhuti Bhusan Das, he found the aforesaid bus WBS-3719 crossing Chaupatti towards Samuktala. The bus was intercepted by the forest staff and after checking the same 39 bundles of sal firewood kept concealed inside the bus could be recovered. As the accused persons who were driver, conductor and khalasi, on demand, could not produce any document for valid possession of the said firewood, the same was seized and the accused persons were arrested. The Government suffered a loss of Rs. 80,000/-. After enquiry P.O.R. was submitted against the accused persons who were charged under section 3 of the Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, 1934 and Rule 11 of the West Bengal Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1959. They were convicted by the Id. SDJM under Rule 11 of the" said West Bengal Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1959 and were sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 300/- each, but in appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 13/95 they were acquitted by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) In Forest Case No. 392/MPP-I the authorised officer by order dated 08.06.94 confiscated the vehicle on the same allegation on the ground that the registered owner of the bus failed to prove that the forest produce was carried without his knowledge and each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against use of the vehicle in commission of the offence. The said order was confirmed by the impugned order in appeal being No. Misc. Appeal No. 10/94 by the ld. Additional District Judge.