STATE OF ASSAM Vs. PRADIP CHANDRA PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is an authorised officer within the meaning of section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 (in short. 'the Regulation'), has put to challenge the order, dated 21.6.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati, whereby the order dated 23.7.2001, passed by the present petitioner, as authorised officer, confiscated the vehicle (TATA sumo), bearing registration No. A.S. -25-B-7108, along with the timber, which the said vehicle was, allegedly, carrying.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A.K. Thakuria. learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) The material facts, which are not in dispute, may, in brief, be described as follows : On 3.6.2001, the vehicle aforementioned was, allegedly, intercepted by forest officials at Jorahat Check gate, Jorabat, Assam. Though the person, who was driving the vehicle, fled away, the forest officials took into custody the vehicle and, on examination of the same, they found some sawn teak timber lying inside the vehicle. The vehicle as well as the timber, so found, were seized. The respondent herein appeared, as the registered owner of the said vehicle, in the office of the authorised officer concerned, and sought custody of the vehicle, but his request for the custody of the vehicle was declined. A proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle was, then, started in terms of section 49 of the Regulation. The respondent herein appeared in the said confiscation proceeding and resisted the same by claiming, inter alia, that the vehicle had not been carrying the said allegedly illegal timber with his consent or connivance. In the confiscation proceeding, nothing could be produced by the respondent herein to show that the timber, which were found in the said vehicle, were being carried under any authority of law. In such circumstances, an order was made, on 23.7.2001, by the present petitioner, as authorised officer, confiscating not only the timber, in question, but also the vehicle aforementioned. Aggrieved by this order of confiscation, the respondent herein preferred an appeal, which came to be registered as Misc. Appeal No. 5/2002. By the impugned order, dated 21.6.2002, as the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order of confiscation, dated 23.7.2001, the petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, has impugned the same in this writ petition.