PETER BARA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.3.2006 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6303 of 2005 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner - appellant. The appellant is the owner of Truck No. B.R.V. - 9293. On 10.12.1999, the police while patrolling on Pandari Pani-Jaldega Road, stopped the aforementioned truck which was loaded with 30 pieces of semal wood. The driver told the police that the wood had been brought illegally from the forest of Bijia Dam. The driver could not produce any paper regarding the timber. Hence, the Officer-in-Charge seized the truck along with semal wood and the driver was taken into custody. The police registered case under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 33/41/42 of the Indian Forest Act. On the basis of seizure by the police, a confiscation proceeding was initiated by the authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Gumla under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act. In the said confiscation proceeding, in spite of service of notice, the appellant did not appear and ultimately the authorised officer on the basis of evidence, passed the order confiscating the truck and the seized goods. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal being Appeal No. 5 of 2002-03 and thereafter revision, but both the appeal and the revision were dismissed and the order of confiscating authority was confirmed. The appellant had challenged the said order by filing a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 6303 of 2005 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in terms of the impugned judgment and order dated 28.3.2006. The learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities in confiscating proceedings.

(2.) Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned orders as being illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the entire confiscation proceedings initiated against the appellant is bad in law and is in violation of section 52 of the Indian Forest Act. Learned Counsel submitted that neither there is seizure by the forest officials nor there was production of vehicle before the confiscating authority and, therefore, the initiation of confiscation proceeding itself is without jurisdiction.

(3.) From perusal of the records, it appears that the confiscation proceeding was initiated on the basis of prosecution report submitted by the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station. The police officer while patrolling on the road stopped the truck in question which was loaded with 30 pieces of semal wood. The driver told the police officer that the wood has been brought illegally from the forest and no document or paper regarding the timber was produced. Hence, the truck alongwith the timbers were seized. The contention of the appellant that since the seizure was not made by the Forest Officer, no confiscation proceeding could have been initiated, cannot be accepted. Sec. 52 of the Act read as under :