NARESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 15-3-2000 passed by Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Forest and Pollution, Govt. of Bihar, Patna as revisional authority in Revision case No. 36 of 1996, order dated 23-7-1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih as an Appellate authority in Confiscation Appeal No. 2 of 1995 and the order dated 21-1-1995 passed by respondent No. 2, the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih as confiscating authority in Confiscation case No. 40 of 1995. These orders have been annexed as Annexures-1, 2, 3 to the writ application.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 2-1-1995 the vehicle namely, tractor with trailor bearing registration No BR 13-F 1337 was seized by the Range Officer in Khurchutta forest. The tractor was found loaded with 41 pieces of Sal rolas and the driver of the seized tractor could not show any paper regarding ownership and transportation of aforementioned wood. A criminal case was instituted and confiscation proceeding was also started by the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih. On receipt of the notice of the confiscation proceeding, petitioners filed their show-cause and the Confiscating authority after hearing the parties finally passed order of confiscation dated 10-1-1995. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. Giridih being confiscation Appeal No. 2 of 1995. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the confiscating authority. Petitioner then preferred revision before the Secretary, Department of Forest, Govt. of Bihar being Revision case No. 36 of 1996. The said revision was also dismissed on 15-3-2000 and the order of confiscating authority was affirmed.

(3.) Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned orders as being illegal and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence to show that the Sal rolas were cut from the forest area not there was any evidence to show that there was illegal fellings of trees in the forest area. Learned counsel secondly submitted that the petitioner in their show-cause have very categorically stated that the petitioner had friendly relationship with Chandra Mohan Besara who wanted the vehicle to carry some Sal rolas from his father-in-law's house and as a matter of fact, the wood in question was cut from the raiyati land of Gahjejore village. It was also stated in the show-cause that the petitioner had no knowldege that Sal rolas were cut from forest area and further that petitioners have not connived with the said Chandra Mohan Besara in committing the offence. According to the learned counsel inspite of the stand of the petitioner no finding has been recorded by any of the authority that the petitioner connived with Chandra Mohan Besara and he had knowledge about the occurrence which is mandatary requirement of law as envisaged under Sub-sec. 5 of S.52 of the Indian Forest Act.