RANGE OFFICER MANNARGHAT Vs. SUKUMAR MIRDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dated 21st December 1994. In C.O. No. 71 (W) of 1994, whereby and whereunder a writ petition filed by the respondent questioning imposition of damages to the extent of Rs. 10,253/- as also for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents therein to refund a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was allowed.

(2.) The fact of the matter ties in a very narrow compass. On or about 5.1.94 the authorities of the Forest Department arrested 4 persons for the offence of felling of trees illegally. The petitioner, who admittedly is a former employee of the Forest Department, allegedly appeared and confessed that the said 4 persons had been sent by him. The petitioner offered to pay compensation, whereupon the value of the tree was assessed as Rs. 10,253/-. The writ petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 8,000/-, but he had been granted a receipt on 29. 4. 94. It is the case of the appellants that the writ petitioner undertook to pay balance amount, it appears from a letter which is at page 59 of the paper Book, being Annexure 'H', whereby and whereunder he stated that although he deposited earlier the amount, the cash receipt was granted to him only on 29th April 1994, stating that the balance amount could not be collected and the same would be deposited later on. The writ petitioner at this stage filed a writ application. Before the learned trial Judge, the writ petitioner contended that he had asked for copies of the documents in connection with the offence, such as, first information report, seizure memo, panchanama, arrest report and others and in answer thereto, by a letter dated 11.5. 94, the appellant No. 1 directed him to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,253/-. It was further the contention of the writ petitioner that no document was, however, supplied. By another letter dated 9.5.94, the petitioner wrote to the appellant No 2 asking for copies of documents, but there was no response thereto, whereafter, allegedly the petitioner made the aforementioned deposit of Rs. 8,000/-. The ground taken to the writ application was that the confession was obtained from him by the respondents upon putting threat and/or coercion. It was further contended that no proceeding as such was initiated, nor any action was taken in terms of sub-section (2) of section 52, nor any complaint was filed to terms of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, and thus the entire proceedings must be held to be wholly illegal.

(3.) It is, however, admitted that the appellants filed an affidavit in opposition stating the facts as noticed hereinbefore. The learned single Judge allowed the writ application, inter alia, on two grounds, namely, (i) the petitioner has not asked for release of the seized property to him in terms of section 68 of the said Act and (ii) under section 68(3), the respondents cannot accept compensation under clause (i) of subsection (3), exceeding the sum of Rs. 50/-.