Ashok Kumar vs State of M.P. and Another

Narain Singh, "Azad", J.

The Authorized Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Wildlife), Rehli, District Sagar, confiscated the Petitioner''s jeep bearing No. M.P.34-T/0003 and Motorcycle bearing No. M.P.15-H/6401, in favour of State Govt. by order dated 20.3.2001, passed in Confiscation Case No. 29/2002, arising out of P.O.R. No. 7365/14 dated 27.9.2000. The Appellate Authority and Conservator of Forest, Sagar, confirmed the aforesaid order of Authorised Officer by order dated 20.11.2001, passed in Petitioner''s Appeal No. 5/2001. Then this Petitioner remained unsuccessful in the Court of Eight Sessions Judge, Sagar, in his Criminal Revision No. 46/2002, on 9.7.2002, wherein, he challenged the aforesaid order dated 20.3.2001, passed by Authorised Officer and order dated 20.11.2001, passed by Appellate Authority and Conservator of Forest, Sagar. Now, the Petitioner seeks quashment of all the aforesaid three orders and release of confiscated jeep bearing No. M.P.34-T/0003 (which shall hereinafter referred to as the vehicle), in his favour, in exercise of inherent powers.

As per Respondents, the Petitioner is a registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle, who along with other co-accused was found unauthorisedly carrying the felled logs in vehicle, in Reserved Forest Compartment No. 123 of Range Mohli, Dist Sagar. The Forest Guards caught the Petitioner in mid-night of 26th and 27th of September, 2000, during their patrolling duty. The Petitioner and co-accused made their escape good on account of darkness, but on 27th Sept. 2000, they quarrelled with the Forest Officers and hence the F.I.R. was lodged, as the Petitioner and co-accused could be identified. The Forest Officials registered offences punishable u/s 27, 29, 39(d) of the Wildlife Protection Act. 1972, u/s 3/5 of the Public Property Act, 1984 and u/s 41, 42 & 52 of the Indian Forest Act, so also u/s 5, 9, 11, 15 & 16 of the M.P. Van Upaj Vyapar Adhiniyam, 1969, in P.O.R. No. 7365/14 dt.27.9.2000. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of different persons and the Authorised Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, looking to the facts on record, initiated the confiscation proceedings of the vehicle under intimation to the Competent Court and issuance of notice to the Petitioner. After examining the reply of the Petitioner and considering the statements of the witnesses so also the material on record, the Authorised Officer-SDO (Forest), confiscated the vehicle in the interest of State Govt.

The Petitioner seeks quashment of all the three orders on the grounds that as per Section 4 of the Forest Act, (which shall hereinafter referred to as the Act), whenever the land is constituted as a reserve forest, the State Govt., has to issue a notification in the Gazette, and as per Sections 20 and 21 of the act, the notification has to be published with boundary marks or the limit of the forest which is being reserved. The date of commencement of that notification into force is also to be published and a translation thereof into the local vernacular has to be published over town and villages situated in the neighbourhood of the reserved forest, but, in this case, the fact of publication of the notification is not proved. It is also the case of the Petitioner that the notification issued U/ s. 20 of the Act is not published in local vernacular of the locality as provided u/s 21 of the Act, and so also no person can be held guilty of any forest offence, which is alleged to have been committed in that area. It is also submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that no report in writing of the facts constituting forest offence, is lodged by any of the Forest Officer, therefore, cognizance of any offence punishable u/s 18 of the M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar) Viniyam Adhiniyam, can not be taken. It is also the case of the Petitioner that for an offence punishable under the Act, no investigation may be carried out, without the permission of the Assistant Conservator of Forest and this permission is not proved to have been obtained on behalf of the Respondents. Violation of provisions contained in Sections 5 and 50 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, is also alleged to have been committed by the investigating agency. It is further stated on behalf of the Petitioner that he did not give consent nor did he permit the driver to take the vehicle in reserved forest area, and the Forest Officer also did not prepare any Panchnama or seizure memo of cartridges fired and the punctured tyre of the jeep, which were very important pieces of evidence therefore, in the absence of details of seized timber in the seizure memo, the case of the Respondents is not to be believed. Drawing the Court''s attention to various infirmities and contradictions appearing in evidence of the Respondents, it is lastly submitted that no offence is prima-facie found to have been proved by the Respondents.

So far as the grounds of non-proof of issuance of notification U/ s. 20 of the Act and its publication in the Gazette, so also in local vernaculars u/s 21 of the Act, are concerned, referring Jitendranath Ghosh v. Manmohan Ghosh, (1930) 57 I.A. 214 = 58 Calcutta 301, it is explained in 19th Edition of Law of Evidence by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, at page 352, u/s 114, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it has to be presumed that the procedure laid down in a statute was duly followed and that proper statutory notice was given. Then it is dictated by the Revisional Court in para 8 of its order dated 9.7.2002, that in the copy of notification filed on behalf of Respondents on 27.10.2001, before the Appellate Authority, the place at which the seizure is made is shown in the area of Reserved Forest called - NAURADEHI ABHYARAN. Thirdly, it is also noted that in the cross examination of Phool Singh Rajak, Forest Guard, who issued P.O.R. No. 7365/14 dt.27.9.2000, Ganeshram Shrivastava, Forest Guard and Om Prakash Mishra, Forest Guard, so also Dhir Singh Gaur, Forest Ranger (Vanpal), who are examined before Authorised Officer and were posted in concerning area, called Boma, no attempt is made on behalf of the Petitioner to prove that a notification U/ s. 20 of the Act is not issued declaring "NAURADEHI ABHYARAN" to be the Reserved Forest or that the notification is not published in local vernaculars therefore, under clause E of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, a presumption shall be raised that a notification u/s 20 of the Act is duly issued and the same is duly published in local vernaculars, as required u/s 21 of the Act.

Since the point of commission of any forest offence is not to be adjudicated in these proceedings therefore, it is not required to be considered whether an officer who made enquiry in respect of P.O.R. No. 7365/14 dated 27.9.2000, was competent to make enquiry or not.

So far as other ground taken by the Petitioners are concerned, it is noted that the affirmative findings recorded by the Authorised Officer-cum-S.D.O. (Forest), on the points of entry of Jeep No. M.P.34-T/0003 and the motorcycle No. M.P.15-H/6401 in Nauradehi Abhyaran, which is a Reserved Forest was without a permission from the Competent Officer, 5 fresh logs of Sagaun were found in seized Jeep No. M.P.34-T/0003 and these 5 logs of Sagaun, which were the forest produce, were cut and brought from Pocket No. RF-123 of Nauradehi Abhyaran, without any transit pass or lawful authority and that the owner of the vehicle himself used these vehicles, for commission of forest offences, are not perverse, which are found confirmed by Appellate and Revisional Authorities, also on appreciation of evidence.

Thus, in the absence of any patent illegality in the orders, which are sought to be quashed, or miscarriage of justice, this petition does not merit, which is accordingly disallowed and rejected.