UPENDRA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder, the judgment dated 28.09.2012 passed in confiscation no.01/2010 by the Divisional Forest Officer cum Confiscating Officer, Koderma, by which, a Mahindra Pick-up bearing no.JH-12C 0225 along with 28 pieces of wood logs loaded there have been confiscated in favour of the State which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as also the revisional authority in the order passed on 03.07.2013 in confiscation appeal no.42 of 2012 and the revision case no.16 of 2013 dated 11.01.2016.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that a confiscation proceeding has been initiated for confiscation of truck bearing registration no.JH-12C 0225 which has been seized by the Forest Officer from the burning ghat by the Officer of the forest department for alleged commission of offence under the Forest Act for transportation of the 20 pieces of forest wood-logs and each piece was 6' long with radius 2' and 8 pieces of forest woods and each piece was 4.5' long with radius 2' in pursuance thereto, an FIR has also been instituted being Koderma (Domchanch) P.S. Case No.605/09 for commission of offence under Section 414 of the IPC and under Sections 33 , 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The petitioner after appearance on the basis of the show cause notice, has put-forth his defence denying the allegation by taking the ground that no such offence alleged to have been committed under the Forest Act rather the wood has been transported by the said vehicle for its use at burning ghat. The Circle Officer, Koderma has supported the aforesaid contention.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the said wood was cut from the land which belongs to one Masomat Bhuneshwari and some of the branches are in the house of the petitioner and hence, it cannot be said that any illegal cut of the forest wood has been committed by the petitioner. Further according to the petitioner, the aforesaid fact has not been appreciated by the Forest Officer and without any proper application of mind, the order of confiscation has been passed. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the said plea has been agitated before the appellate as also before the revisional authority but these authorities have also declined to interfere with the original order, as such, the present writ petition has been filed.