PARTAP CHAND GOYAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Session Division at Rampur Bushahr on 20th February, 2001 in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge quashed and set aside the order passed by the Authorised Officer. Ani on 25th August, 2000 in Case No. 12 of 2000.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that on 14th June, 2000, one Gautam Chand, Head Constable of Police Station Ani was on routine patrol duty. He was present at Shamsher within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ani. He noticed a truck bearing No. HP-35-0597 coming from Gugra going towards Ani. Shadi Ram was driving the truck and Bansi Ram was the conductor. The truck was stopped by the police. It was found that it was carrying 27 scants of Deodar. On being asked, neither the driver nor the conductor could produce any transit pass or export permit of the forest produce. The police had, therefore, impounded the truck along with forest produce and a report to that effect was submitted by Gautam Chand, Head Constable, which was registered as FIR 34 of 2000 for offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence had been registered against the driver and the conductor. After usual investigation, the police filed charge- sheet against the truck driver and conductor in the competent Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ani. The present petitioner Pratap Chand Goyal was the registered owner of the vehicle. He, therefore, applied to the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate for release of truck. The application of the present petitioner, however, was rejected by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 27th June, 2000 on the ground that since the offence is alleged to have been committed under Sections 52 and 52-A of the Act, it was to be dealt with by the Authorised Officer and the Court of the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

(3.) In view of the fact that the application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that he had no jurisdiction and only the Authorised Officer could deal with the prayer made by the petitioner, the petitioner made an application to the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Ani at Lohri, which was registered as Case No. 12 of 2000. The Authorised Officer issued notice to the State and after hearing the parties, by an order dated 25th August, 2000, directed the release of vehicle on certain terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: Keeping in view the above, the vehicle No. HP-35-0597, is ordered to be released on Sapur dan on surety bond for Rs. 5,00.000/- (Rupees five lacs) only. with the following conditions: