Sujeet Singh @ Surjit Singh, Son of Sri Ram Jatan Singh, Resident of Village v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Authorized Officer Cum Divisional Forest Officer, West
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 7028 of 2017 Sujeet Singh @ Surjit Singh, Son of Sri Ram Jatan Singh, Resident of Village- Surhi, Post Office- Surhi, Police Station- Nawadih, District- Bokaro Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Authorized Officer Cum Divisional Forest Officer, West Forest Division, Hazaribagh, Post Office and Police Station- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, Post Office and Police Station- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh. 4. Revisional Authority-cum-Additional Chief Secretary, Forest Environment and climate Change Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. District- Ranchi. … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate [through Video Conferencing] : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Rishi Ranjan Vats, Advocate --- 16/14.10.2024 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "That in this writ application petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) for quashing the order dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure-4), passed in Revision Case. No. 72 of 2017 by Respondent No.4 whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to dismiss the Revision application filed by petitioner against the Judgment dated 14.02.2017 (Annexure-3) passed by Respondent No.3 rejecting the Confiscation Appeal No. 10 of 2016 filed by this petitioner against the order dated in 25.06.2016 (Annexure-2), passed by Respondent No.2 Confiscation Case No. 13 of 2014 (GF Case. No. 126 of 2014) whereby and where under the truck of petitioner bearing Registration No. JH-10S- 8258 along with 6.320 MTs of Coal loaded on it has been ordered to be confiscated; and for any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may grant to petitioner for doing conscionable justice to him." 3. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle which has been confiscated with loaded coal by the authorities of the forest department under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of confiscation of his truck which has been confirmed up till the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order has submitted that the background of seizure has been mentioned in the offence report and seizure list. He submits that
Decision
narration as is reflected from page 25 of the writ petition which is a part of the offence report, does not reveal that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle was present along with the vehicle at the time of seizure. He submits that the confiscating authority has considered the provisions of section 52(5) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Bihar Amendment and has recorded that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle also ran away from the spot and therefore, he is not entitled for protection under section 52(5) of Indian Forest Act, 1927. The learned counsel submits that the narration of the offence report does not reflect that the petitioner was present when the vehicle was apprehended and accordingly, the authority has committed error of record by recording that the petitioner had fled away at the time of seizure of vehicle. The offence report reveals that the driver and the helper ran away upon seeing the authorities. He submits that the learned appellate authority has passed a cryptic order while dismissing the appeal against the order of confiscation and the revisional authority has also not considered the provision of section 52(5) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Bihar amendment. 5. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per the case of the respondents, the vehicle was carrying additional 6.320 MT of coal over and above 15.730 MT of coal. Necessary enquiry was also done from CCL and it was confirmed that 15.730 MT was loaded on the truck, but upon weighment it was found to be about 22 MT. The learned counsel submits that otherwise also, the petitioner was entitled for consideration of his plea in terms of section 52(5) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Bihar Amendment. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that at the time of seizure of truck no documents were produced, rather the persons who were present in the truck ran away and the petitioner was shown to be absconder at page no. 24 of the writ petition, though at page no. 25 it 2 has not been mentioned that the owner of the vehicle also ran away. The learned counsel submits that in case the aforesaid plea of the petitioner is to be reconsidered, the matter may be remitted to the Revisional Authority. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and it is alleged that the vehicle was seized with 22 MT of coal. As per the order of confiscation which was passed after conducting enquiry, the Central Coalfields Limited had confirmed loading of 15.730 MT and upon measurement, it was found to be loaded excess to the extent of 6.320 MT. 8. The confiscating authority, while dealing with the provisions of section 52(5) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Bihar Amendment has observed that the petitioner was found running away leaving the truck along with the driver although as per the offence report, there is allegation that two persons namely, Latif Ansari and Jani Babu were arrested on the spot and as per description of the offence in the offence report, there is no mention about running away of any person , much less , the owner of the vehicle. This Court finds that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the confiscating authority. 9. The learned appellate authority has passed a cryptic order dismissing the appeal vide order dated 14.02.2017 by simply stating that the order of seizure was passed after following due procedure and granting opportunity of hearing and the learned advocate of the petitioner failed to explain with regard to extra/additional coal claimed by the forest department. The revisional authority also has properly not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 10. Section 52(5) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Bihar Amendment is quoted as under: "(5) No order of confiscation under sub-section (3) of any tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article (other than the forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or other article were used without his knowledge or connivance or as the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been 3 taken against use of the objects aforesaid for commission of forest offence." 11. This Court is of the considered view that section 52(5) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Bihar Amendment is an important protection for those whose vehicles are used for commission of forest offence without their knowledge or connivance and in the circumstances where all reasonable and necessary precautions were taken against the use of the vehicle for commission of forest offence. The confiscating authority has recorded that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle also ran away from the spot and therefore his involvement in the commission of offence cannot be ruled out. This finding is apparently an error of record as two persons were apprehended with the loaded truck and the offence report does not mention that any person ran away from the spot. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the appellate authority and also revisional authority. The involvement of the petitioner being the owner of the truck was required to be considered in the light of the aforesaid section 52(5) in the light of the materials on record and the stand taken by the petitioner in the show cause reply. 12. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the revisional authority dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure-4) passed in Revision Case No. 72 of 2017 is set-aside to enable the revisional authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law considering the materials already on record and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 13. The revisional authority shall pass appropriate order within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the said authority. 14. The petitioner shall appear before the said authority on 28th October 2024. 15. This writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. 16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj 4 (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)