BABLU NANDI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the orders dated 3.12.2003/20.1.2004 passed by the Commissioner cum Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi in Confiscation Revision No.(C)-19 of 2003, whereby and whereunder he dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 27.11.2000/304.2001 passed in Confiscation Case No.4/2000 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur and affirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur dated 29.7.2002.

(3.) THE respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit, inter alia, justifying the impugned order by which the vehicle in question has been confiscated for being found indulging in the act/offence committed under the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act,1989. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that liability of the owner cannot be absolved when it is found that the driver and khalasi, employed by the owner, had allowed such activities prohibited under the Forest Act. Leaned counsel for the respondents submits that the whole purpose of the punishment provided under the Forest Act is in the nature of deterrent upon the perpetrators of the forest crime and it is the solemn duty of the State to give protection of the forest and environment. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ashique vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 (1) PLJR 37 (SC), wherein by referring to the offences committed under the Forest Act, the relevant provision has been discussed in para 6 thereof wherein the case of State of West Bengal vs. Sujit Kumar Rana, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1851 at para 19 and 20, have also been quoted in the judgment and held that "the provisions for confiscation have been made as a deterrent object so that felling of trees and deforestation is not made."