MOST. DULIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 11.9.2001 (Annexure 3) passed in Confiscation Case No.4 of 2001 and also quashing of the order dated 21.8.2002/ 6.5.2002 (Annexure 4) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in appeal, bearing no.103 of 2001 and also to quash the order dated 20.6.2003 (Annexure 5) passed by Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi in Confiscation Revision No.4 of 2003 whereby order passed by the Confiscating Officer has been affirmed . 2. Brief facts of the case are that when the forest guard in course of patrolling on 29.1.2001 at about 6 P.M. did find that some miscreants after falling saplings trees got the boulders loaded on a truck bearing no. BRM -2621 within Bhandwar division of forest boundary, he seized the truck along with loaded boulders and the driver was arrested. The driver failed to produce any document and hence, a case was lodged under section 33 of the Indian Forest ( Bihar Amendment Act, 1990), Act, 1927. Subsequently, the matter was referred for initiation of confiscation proceeding before the Divisional Forest Officer, who, in turn, made request to the District Transport Officer to send the name and address of the truck owner. After obtaining such information, notice was sent to the truck owner. However, in the meantime, one Tulsi Sao by filing show cause intimated to the Divisional Forest Officer that after the death of Janki Mistry, owner of the said truck, he had purchased the said truck from widow and sons of Janki Mistry. Thereupon notice was served upon the petitioner, widow of Janki Mistry, who also admitted before the Divisional Forest Officer that she had sold the truck to Tulsi Sao but name of Tulsi Sao had not been transferred in the certificate of registration. It appears that District Transport Officer also intimated to the respondent no.4 that after the death of Janki Mistry, his legal heirs are owners of the said truck. Thereafter respondent no.2 after holding that forest offence has been committed in which truck in question was involved and hence, truck is liable to be confiscated under the provision of section 52 of the Indian Forest Act (as amended by Bihar Amendment Act, 1990). The said order on being challenged before the appellate authority and also before the revisional authority remained intact and consequently order passed by the Confiscating Officer got affirmed.