MD. YUNUS ANSARI @ YUNUS ANSARI @ YUNUS MIAN Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ application is to the order dated 27.01.2012 passed by the respondent no.3 in Confiscation Case No. 11 of 2011 by which the trailer and tractor of the petitioner seized in the case along with eight pieces of Acacia wood has been confiscated in favour of State and the prayer for release of the seized two vehicles, has been rejected and also the order dated 14.11.2012 passed by the respondent no.2- Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, in Confiscation Case no. 10 of 2012 by which the order passed by the respondent no.3 has been upheld.

(2.) The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that at the instance of Sub-Inspector of Domchanch Police Station, a case under Sec. 414 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act being Domchanch P.S. Case No. 51 of 2011 was instituted against the present petitioner, who is the owner of the said tractor, and the driver of the aforesaid vehicle, on the allegation that after cutting Acacia trees standing on the Raiyati land of village Lakshandih and Bagridh, the same was being transported towards Domchanch and for verifying the same, the informant reached at Bagro-Bagridih road and found the stems of those trees loaded on one Mahindra Tractor and trailer and after seeing the police party, the driver of the tractor fled away whereafter, the tractor along with trailer and logs were seized and the instant case was lodged. Later on confiscation proceeding was also initiated bearing no. 11 of 2011. After due investigation, the police finding no complicity of the present petitioner in the said case submitted final form exonerating him from the offences alleged but the charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the vehicle only. It appears from the record that the petitioner after getting the notices of the confiscation proceeding filed his show-cause that the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and the same was given to the driver Shankar Yadav and on the relevant date, cow-dung was being carried on the seized vehicle and after unloading the same, the driver was returning but in the way, the driver went to attend call of nature by stopping his vehicle on road side when some local women, who were carrying eight pieces of Acacia green wood, kept those woods in the seized vehicle but after seeing the police party, they fled away and the said eight pieces of Acaciawoods were recovered by the police.

(3.) Mr. Deepak Kumar, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, seriously contended that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the offence alleged and the police after investigation had submitted the final form but even then the respondent nos. 2 and 3 without appreciating the same rejected the prayer for release of the vehicles. It was also submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the seized Acacia-wood and the petitioner being owner of the vehicles the Mahindra tractor bearing registration no. BR-47-1702 and its trailer bearing no. BR-47-1703 had rightly prayed for their release. Further assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel submitted that even if the seized vehicle was involved in transportation of illegally cutting forest produce, for that reason, the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, cannot be held responsible, when the competent court of criminal jurisdiction has already exonerated him from the alleged offence after due investigation.