ISHWAR LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand dated 17.4.85 whereby he affirmed the order of confiscation of Truck No. RSY 3079 passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhim on 28.6.84.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 18.2.84 one complaint was filed by Regional Forest Officer under section 26 of the Rajasthan Forest Act (hereinafter referred to asthe Act) against Udai Singh alleging that on 15.2.84 he was taking wood from forest without any permit and the accused be convicted and it was also prayed that the truck may be confiscated. A challan under section 42 of the Act was filed before the learned Magistrate. Udaisingh was arrested and charge under section 26 and 41 of the Act was framed against him. After trial the learned Magistrate by his order dated 26.7.84 acquitted Udaisingh but under section 55 of the Act the truck was confiscated as it was used for taking wood without any authority and peimit. Against this order of confiscation the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 17.4 85. Hence this petition.

(3.) Mr. T. S. Champawat, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitied that in the present case Sec 55 is not attracted as no offence under section 26 or 41 punishable under section 42 was committed. He has also submitted that there is no question of applicability of the word "may be in addition to any other punishment prescribed for such offence and the order of confiscation is wholly illegal, and amounts to abuse of the process of the court. He has further submitted that no charge under section 55 has been framed against the owner or the driver though the driver was present but he was not prosecuted. Mr. Champawat. has further submitted that the wood found in the truck was of negligible value in comparison to the value of truck. Mr. Champawat, has submitted that before confiscation of the truck no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and thus violated the principles of natural justice. He has relied on State of M P. Vs. M/s. Azad Bharat Finance Co., AIR 1967 SC 276 , Krishna Pillai Vs. State of Madras, AIR SC 335 , and K.R. Pushphan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1985 Ker. 184 .