KANHAIYA LAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 17th April 2012 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest & Environment), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi in Confiscation Revision No. 100 of 2011 (Annexure-5), whereunder the order dated 1st July 2011 passed in Confiscation Appeal No. 1 of 2010 (Annexure-4) as also the original order dated 8th August 2009 passed in Confiscation Case No. 23 of 2005 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh, has been confirmed and the revision application of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner consequently has prayed for release of coal and vehicle bearing Registration No. PB-07B-3966, as according to him, the entire confiscation proceeding is wholly without any basis as this court has categorically held in its judgment dated 11th September 2009 in Cr. M.P. No. 853 of 2005 in respect of the same incidence and the alleged forest offences that no offence under sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is made out against the petitioner.

(2.) According to the petitioner, on a complaint, the Forest Range Officer, Gola Range, Ramgarh intercepted a truck bearing registration No. PB-07B-3966 loaded with coal and upon questioning, documents relating to such transportation of coal could not be produced by the Khalashi of the truck, while the driver had fled away. Accordingly, coal and the vehicle both were seized by the respondent authorities and a confiscation proceeding vide confiscation case No. 23 of 2005 was initiated before the Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It is submitted that the prosecution was also launched against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint made by the Range Officer, Gola Range, Ramgarh alleging commission of offence under sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. In the said criminal case being G. No. 231 of 2005, cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh vide order dated 17th June 2006 for the offences under the Indian Forest Act against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the entire criminal proceeding as also the order of cognizance dated 17th June 2006 in Cr. M.P. No. 853 of 2005 before this court. This court after hearing the parties, has by the detailed judgment 11th September 2009, quashed the entire criminal proceedings as well as the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicability of sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act have been comprehensibly dealt with in the said judgment and this court arrived at a finding that the respondents have no power to issue any notification or frame rules for transit of coal. It is submitted that this court had also found that there was no allegation against the petitioner or other accused persons that they were mining the coal in the forest area. It is submitted that this court also held that admittedly, coal in question is not a forest produce and therefore, the rule for transit of forest produce framed under section 41 of the Indian Forest Act has no application in the case of transit of coal. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the impugned order of confiscation of the vehicle and coal in question is unsustainable in law as it has been squarely held by this court that no forest offence has been committed by the petitioner. He further submits that section 52 of the Indian Forest Act can only be made applicable if any forest offence is said to be committed in respect of any forest produce by using tools, boats, carts or cattle which can be subjected to confiscation.