GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL Vs. JAYANTA KUMAR KAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, State of West Bengal has preferred this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated November 29, 2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2013, by which the learned Sessions Judge had set aside the order of confiscation of seized vehicle No. WB33-2549 passed by the Forest Officer, Bankura (South Division) and Divisional Forest Officer under section 59A of the India Forest Act, 1927. It appears from record that on November 5, 2012 the truck bearing number WB33-2549 was seized by the Forest Officer under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 along with forest produce. The Authorized Officer, Bankura (South Division), confiscated the said seized truck, bearing No. WB33-2549 under section 59A(3) of the Indian Forest Act as amended by the State of West Bengal with effect from February 3, 1989 by passing order bearing No. 966/15-LLC dated April 26, 2013. The said order of confiscation of the seized vehicle was challenged before the Court of Sessions by the opposite party by preferring an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2013. The learned Sessions Judge disposed of the Criminal appeal No. 16 of 2013 by setting aside the order of confiscation passed by the Forest Officer of the Forest Department. The said judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2013 is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, State of West Bengal contends that the order of confiscation of the vehicle passed by the Forest Officer under section 59A (3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is appealable before the learned District Judge under section 59D of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge has no authority under the law to entertain the appeal against the order of confiscation passed by the Forest Officer under section 59A(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2013 is without jurisdiction and as such the same is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Mr. Dipankar Dandapath, the learned Counsel for the opposite party does not oppose the submission made by Mr. Bhattacharya so far as the question of appeal under section 59D of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is concerned. However, the learned Counsel submits that the opposite party must be given opportunity to prefer appeal before the learned District Judge under section 59D of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as long three years have already lapsed after the order of confiscation passed by the Authorized Officer.