VIJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the original order dated 10th August, 2001 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO for short), Garhwa in Confiscation Case No. 21/2000; Appellate order dated 25th of February, 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa in Confiscation Appeal No. 19/2001 and the revisional order dated 4th December, 2002 passed by the Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Jharkhand in Revision Case No. (C) -11/2002. In the confiscation case, the Respondent DFO, seized the Truck No. BR -15G -1140, apart from forest produce, which was affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. Ram Narayan Sharma Versus State Of Jharkhand

(2.) THE petitioner, who is the owner of the Truck, in question, has challenged the orders on amongst the following grounds :

(3.) SO far as the second ground that no proper notice was given to the petitioner and others intimating that a forest offence has been committed is concerned, for determination of such issue, one may look into the notice, contained in letter No. 3482 dated 8th December, 2000 (Annexure -3). The said notice has been issued from the Court of authorized officer -cum -DFO, Garhwa, South Division. In the subject matter of notice, it was clearly mentioned that the notice has been issued in view of Offence Report No. 62P dated 5th December, 2000 submitted by Range Officer of Forest. Ranka (East). It was mentioned that step has been taken for confiscation of Truck No. BR -15G -1140 as it was carrying forest produce. Thereby, it is evident that the offence related to carrying forest produce was mentioned in the notice and petitioner and others were informed and asked to submit show cause, why the forest produce and the vehicle in question, be not confiscated. The aforesaid notice Is completely, in accordance with law, will also be evident from the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner, wherein he took the plea of no knowledge of committing offence under Forest Act and requested for release of truck. Thus, the second ground as raised is also decided against the petitioner.