THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DUMKA Vs. SHEO SHANKAR BHAGAT, SON OF SRI BASUKI NATH BHAGAT, VILLAGE PATHARGAMA, GODDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant matter relates to the year, 1993 when the truck of the respondent writ petitioner (hereinafter referred as 'petitioner') was seized by the officials of the Forest Department on the allegation that it was carrying fresh cut wooden logs and fire wood of different trees without having any transit permit. The driver and the cleaner were allegedly arrested and on the basis of a written report a criminal case under Sec. 33(1), 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act was registered against the driver, the cleaner and the petitioner (owner of the truck). At the same time, proceedings under Sec. 52 of the Indian Forest Act were also initiated against the petitioner for confiscation of his truck having Registration No. BR367065 for carrying the aforesaid forest materials. In Confiscation Case No. 04 of 1993 an order was passed on 23.04.1993 by the Divisional Forest for confiscation of the said truck registered in the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner moved Patna High Court through the medium of Cr.W.J.C. No. 140 of 1994 in which an order of release of the said truck was passed on furnishing surety bond of Rs. 2 lacs with two local sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned Deputy Commissioner with an undertaking that the aforesaid vehicle would be produced whenever so ordered by the Collector and/or any other authority. Ultimately, vide order dated 13.04.1996 the confiscation order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dumka was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda which gave a cause to the petitioner to file revision petition being, Revision Petition No. C16 of 1996 before the Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Bihar which was also dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2000. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid three orders through the medium of C.W.J.C. No. 2634 of 2000 (P) which was allowed by the learned Writ Court vide impugned order dated 05.12.2013 directing the appellants (respondents before the Writ Court) to release the petitioner's truck forthwith.

(2.) The Court has been informed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the aforesaid truck is still being plied by him, being the registered owner of the said truck.

(3.) We find from the impugned judgment that one of the grounds which weighed with the learned Writ Court was the acquittal earned by the writ petitioner in the criminal case on which aspect Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel for the appellants joined issue contending that the confiscation proceeding initiated under Sec. 52 of the Forest Act is altogether different from a criminal case registered for committing forest offence. He submitted that although the petitioner had earned acquittal in the criminal case, yet the confiscation proceeding being independent of all other proceedings could be brought to its logical end and therefore, the learned Writ Court should not have interfered with the orders passed in the confiscation proceeding on the ground of acquittal earned by the petitioner in the criminal case registered on the complaint of the forest officials.