MD. SARFRAJ Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 10.3.2014 in Revision Petition No. 2 Ban Muk. (C) -01 of 2013, the present writ petition has been filed. Briefly stated, a First Information Report being Herhanj P.S. Case No. 1 of 2011 was registered on 13.1.2011 under Ss. 379, 411 and 120 -B IPC and under Sec. 33 of the Forest Act against the petitioner and others on the allegation that illegal coal was being transported on the truck bearing No. BHM 6809, the owner of which is the petitioner. The confiscation proceeding under Sec. 52(4) of the Forest Act was initiated in which the petitioner filed his reply denying involvement of the truck in commission of a forest offence. Vide order dated 19.1.2012 in Confiscation Case No. 2 of 2011, the Authorised Officer -cum -Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar confiscated the seized truck. The Deputy Commissioner -cum -District Magistrate set aside order dated 19.1.2012 on the ground that there are two contradictory reports of the forest officer and there is no independent witness to the occurrence. In Revision Petition No. 2 Ban Muk. (C) -01 of 2013, the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment however, quashed the order passed by the appellate authority.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of two conflicting reports of the forest officer, the prosecution failed to conclusively establish that Dumartand is a protected forest. Moreover, the Circle Officer in his report dated 9.11.2012 found that Dumartand is a tola of Village -Chiru and, plot No. 5256 having area 211.02 acres is not in Village -Chiru. The learned counsel further submitted that as per challan No. 0228780 dated 7.1.2011, the truck proceeded with coal on 17.1.2011 from Sikani Coal Project but due to break down, the truck was standing for the period 7.1.2011 to 12.1.2011 thereafter, when truck was going to its destination it was seized by the police. Contending that there was no evidence that coal was illegally extracted from the reserved forest, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional order is liable to be quashed.