GHEESU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A brief background to this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is that FIR No.72/2016 (wrongly typed in the FIR as 72/2006) was registered against accused Ayyub, Aadil, Aasif, Gheesu and Nishar with Police Station Kaman in the District of Bharatpur for violation of provisions of Sec. 30, 32 and 33 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1953') having allegations that the accused persons were found cutting the green trees in the forest area and were making way for movement of the vehicle. An L.N.T.(Poklen) machine model No. E.C. 210 B without registration number was also seized alleging the vehicle was being used for commission of the offences under the Act of 1953. The occurrence was allegedly committed in the intervening night of 23/10/2015.

(2.) By order dtd. 9/3/2016, the competent authority decided to confiscate the said vehicle. The petitioner claiming ownership on the said vehicle challenged the order of confiscation under Sec. 52A of the Act of 1953 before the appellate authority in Appeal No. 15/2016. The appeal was dismissed by order dtd. 28/6/2016 and the order of confiscation was confirmed. The appellate court directed that the confiscation will be subject to the result of trial of the accused. The petitioner challenged the order of the appellate authority before the learned Sessions Judge under Sec. 52B of the Act of 1953 in Criminal Revision No. 70/2017. The Criminal Revision was dismissed on 8/11/2017 as barred by limitation, thereafter the petitioner approached this Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 6180/2017 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dtd. 11/4/2018 with liberty to the petitioner to pursue alternative legal recourse according to law. Hence this petition.

(3.) The challenge to the order of the competent authority is on the ground that it suffers from non compliance of the mandates of law. The appellate authority did not consider the non compliance of mandate of law and the revisional authority dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition on technical ground. Since the issue raised is non compliance of mandatory requirements of Sec. 52 of the Act of 1953, the said provision is being reproduced below in toto: