TRILOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the Judgment and order dated 8.4.96 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri in Misc. Appeal No. 53 of 1991, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of confiscation of the truck bearing No. B.H.I. 8225 of the petitioner by the Authorised Officer under the Indian Forest Act in order No.42431/15 -99 dated 3.10.91. Facts leading on to the instant application are as follows : - On 18.6.90 at about 7 a.m. Truck No. B.H.I. 8225 was detained by R.O. Mobile Patrol Party Range at Teesta Bridge Check Post. On search, the truck was found loaded with Tejpata covered by T.P. No. 37/3557 dated 4.6.90 but illicit Sal Sawn timber of 75 pieces measuring 4.112 cubic meters were found under Tejpata in concealed condition. The driver and two other persons travelling in the truck managed to escape by that time and the Khalasi was arrested.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the petitioner Trilok Singh claimed himself to be the owner of the Truck and applied on 9.8.90 before the Authorised Officer for release of the Truck. A notice was issued to the said Trilok Singh by the Authorised Officer asking him to show cause why the Truck should not be confiscated for offence under the Indian Forest Act and Trilok Singh, who is admittedly the registered owner of the said truck submitted a reply to the said notice on 16.1.90 stating therein that the notice was vague, insufficient and bad in law and he had no knowledge that the truck was involved in any offence under the Indian Forest Act. It was also stated that the truck was hired by M/s. India Carriers Private Ltd. for transportation of Cigarettes and Sri Ram Kumar Jha, Clerk of the said company, appointed a temporary driver Sri Jasbir Singh as the regular driver was not available on account of his mother's illness and the temporary driver was not incharge of the vehicle and he was not appointed by the owner of the vehicle and he had no knowledge about the incident.

(3.) THEREAFTER further notice was served upon the petitioner and the original driver but the driver, did not turn up and the owner Trilok Singh, the petitioner, contested the confiscation proceeding.