GHANSHAYAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.1.94, passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta, by which the learned Special Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner -appellant and the order dated 18.4.90, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta City, confiscating the truck No. RRN 5475 was up -held.

(2.) ACCUSED Hari Ram, on 17.12.88, was found carrying timber/forest produce in truck No. RRN 5475 near village Kalru by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Merta City. The truck alongwith the limber, was seized by the police. A charge -sheet against accused Hari Ram was submitted in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta City, for the offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act'). Accused Hari Ram pleaded guilty and, therefore, on the basis of his plea of guilt, he was convicted for these offences and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250/ -. After the conviction and sentence of accused Hari Ram for the offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act, the proceedings under Section 55 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 were, also, initiated for confiscation of the truck No. RRN 5475 carrying illegally cut timber at the relevant time. A notice of the proceedings under Section 55 of the Act was issued to Indra Raj the registered owner of the truck. Shri Prem Sukh Mirdha, Advocate, was engaged by Indra Raj but neither Indra Raj nor his counsel appeared and no reply to the show cause notice was filed. The learned Magistrate, by its order dated 18.4.90, ordered for the confiscation of the truck. Dissatisfied with the order dated 18.4.90, passed by the learned Magistrate, ordering for the confiscation of the truck, the petitioner, who is the real owner of the truck and to whom no notice was given by the learned Magistrate, preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, which was transferred to the Court of the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta, and the learned Special Judge, by its judgment dated 29.1.94, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner - appellant and held that the order was passed by the learned Magistrate after giving a proper notice to the owner of the vehicle and as the provisions of Section 55 of the Act are mandatory, therefore, the learned Magistrate had no option except for ordering the confiscation of the truck. It is against this order dated 29.1.94 that the petitioner has preferred this miscellaneous petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.