Mohan Chaudhary and others v. Presence

5. On 16 July 2025, respondent no. 3 lodged the impugned FIR under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, alleging unauthorised transport of forest produce. The Petitioners contend that the FIR amounts to double jeopardy and is an abuse of process since the matter already stood examined by the competent mining authority.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners were transporting RBM from an authorised storehouse maintained by a valid licensee. The store had sufficient stock duly recorded in the E-portal, and there was no prohibition on selling stored RBM even after excavation activities had stopped.

7. It is contended that the E-Ravanna could not be generated at the exact moment due to technical issues, but was generated the same morning. The Petitioners, therefore, cannot be accused of unauthorised transport.

8. Learned counsel argues that the Petitioners had already faced penalties imposed by the District Magistrate upon full examination of the records. Having deposited the entire penalty, a subsequent FIR for the same incident is impermissible, arbitrary and amounts to double jeopardy

9. It is further submitted that Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act are not attracted when the RBM originates from a duly authorised Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 899 of 2025, Mohan Chaudhary and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 2 Ashish Naithani J. storehouse and not from a forest area. The FIR, according to counsel, has been lodged mechanically after an unexplained delay of twenty- fourhours.

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that continued seizure causes irreparable loss to the vehicle owners and livelihood loss to the Petitioners, who are drivers dependent on daily earnings.

11. Learned State Counsel submits that at the time of the checking on 15 July 2025, none of the vehicles possessed a valid Ravanna. The possession of the E-Ravanna subsequently generated cannot cure the infraction committed at the time of the checking.

12. It is contended that the FIR discloses a prima facie offence under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, and that the investigation must be permitted to run its course. According to learned State Counsel, the penalties imposed under mining laws are distinct from prosecution under the Forest Act and do not bar criminal proceedings.

13. The State asserts that the Petitioners’ conduct indicates a violation of statutory requirements for transportation of RBM and therefore the FIR ought not to be quashed at the threshold.

15. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. The FIR alleges that RBM was being transported without a valid Ravanna. It is not in dispute that the vehicles were loaded from an authorised storehouse at Kaleshwar operated by a licensee of the State. The storehouse records, permissions issued to the licensee, and the stored RBM quantities, all of which are placed on record, indicate that the material was legally stored and legally available for transport.

16. The record further reflects that the Petitioners generated the E- Ravanna later the same morning. The explanation regarding temporary Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 899 of 2025, Mohan Chaudhary and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 3 Ashish Naithani J. server issues at the storehouse is plausible. It is supported by the contemporaneous conduct of the Petitioners in obtaining and producing the E-Ravanna within a short time frame.

17. The primary question is whether, in these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act is warranted. These provisions are intended to curb illicit removal, transport or possession of forest produce that originates from forest areas in contravention of law. In the present case, the RBM had already been extracted, accounted for and stored by an authorised licensee. The Petitioners were not engaged in extraction but in transportation from a lawful storage depot.

18. The materials placed on record show that the competent mining authorities, upon examining the incident, assessed and imposed penalties for procedural lapses concerning the Motor Vehicles Act and mining regulations. The Petitioners accepted these findings, deposited the entire fine, and thereby regularised the infraction.

19. Once the competent regulatory authority has adjudicated the incident and imposed statutory penalties relating to transportation and documentation, a subsequent criminal prosecution under the Forest Act for the same factual incident must be viewed with circumspection. While the doctrine of double jeopardy under Article 20 sub-section 2 may not strictly apply since the penalties under mining laws do not amount to prosecution for an offence, the Court must still assess whether the FIR discloses ingredients of the alleged offences.

20. On a plain reading of the FIR and the attendant material, the essential ingredients of Sections 41 and 42, namely, illicit transport of forest produce without permits from a forest area, are not made out. Transport from a duly licensed storage depot with tax-paid RBM does Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 899 of 2025, Mohan Chaudhary and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 4 Ashish Naithani J. not fall within the mischief of these provisions. The alleged violation relates only to the timing of the generation of the E-Ravanna, which the mining authorities have already addressed.

21. In such circumstances, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The regulatory authorities have thoroughly examined the matter, and the lack of foundational ingredients under Sections 41 and 42 of the Forest Act renders the FIR unsustainable.

22. As regards release of the vehicles, once the statutory penalty stands deposited, no purpose is served by continued seizure. The vehicles must therefore be released forthwith. ORDER For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. FIR No. 0031 dated 16 July 2025 registered at Police Station Karnprayag, District Chamoli, under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, is hereby quashed, insofar as it relates to the Petitioners. The respondents are directed to release the vehicles of the Petitioners, namely, vehicle Nos. UK-07CD-0678, UK-14CA-9572, UK-14CA- 8801 and UK-14CA-9092, forthwith, subject to due verification of ownership documents. No coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioners in connection with the impugned FIR. Dated:19.09.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 899 of 2025, Mohan Chaudhary and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 5 Ashish Naithani J. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 899 of 2025, Mohan Chaudhary and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 6 Ashish Naithani J.