District Forest Officer vs Santhi and Principal Sessions Judge

K. Chandru, J.—The writ petition is filed by the District Forest Officer, Theni, challenging the order of second Respondent Principal

Sessions Judge, Theni made in Crl.R.P. No. 23/2010.

The writ petition was admitted on 21.05.2010. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay. On notice from this Court, the first

Respondent filed M.P. No. 2 of 2010 to vacate the interim order together with supporting affidavit dated 04.07.2010.

By consent of parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing.

The case of the Petitioner was that on receiving an information that a vehicle with registration No. TN65 E 8159 TATA ACE make was loaded

with 4 numbers of Rosewood, 9 numbers of Teakwood and 2 numbers of Teak round logs on 01.03.2010, the vehicle was seized by the police

on their routine patrolling. Upon the seizure of the property, 4 persons were taken as accused in the custody of the Forest Staff of Cumbum

Range. After enquiry by the Range staff, the accused as well as the seized goods including the vehicle were handed over to the Gudalur Forest

Ranger because the violation occurred in the Gudalur Range limit. The Ranger, Gudalur registered the case in STOR 2/2010 of Gudalur range and

the accused were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, who remanded them to judicial custody for 15 days. The

seized materials were produced 3 before the authorized officer as required u/s 49A of the Tamil Nadu Forest (Amendment) Act 1992.

The Forest Ranger, Gudalur contacted the Regional Transport Officer, Uthamapalayam to ascertain the name of the original owner of the

vehicle by addressing a letter to Regional Transport Office on 04.03.2010. The Regional Transport Officer had informed that the details about the

vehicle were available only at Regional Transport Officer, Ramanathapuram. Accordingly, a letter was addressed to Regional Transport Officer,

Ramanathapuram. The Regional Transport Officer, Ramanathapuram, in his reply informed that the name of the owner was one S. Ulaganathan

resident of 112/15, Yadavar Street, Mandapam, Ramanathapuram District.

On receipt of the reply, a show cause notice was issued to the registered owner by the Petitioner, directing him to submit his explanation within

7 days as to why the vehicle seized should not be confiscated u/s 49A of the Act. The show cause notice was served on 09.04.2010. Since no

reply was received, the Petitioner confiscated the materials along with the 4 vehicle.

The first Respondent, thereafter filed a revision petition before the second Respondent District Court in Crl.R.P. No. 23/2010. She claimed that

she is the owner of the vehicle but she did not possess any valid and authorized document and her name was not at all implicated in the smuggling

of the Scheduled Timber.

u/s 49(b) of the Tamil Nadu Forest (amendment) Act, 1992, no other Officer, Court, Tribunal or authority will have jurisdiction to make orders

with reference to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property. The seized materials along with the vehicle was produced

before the authorized officer namely Assistant Conservator of Forests, Cumbum. The learned judge by exercising power u/s 49(d) of the Act

upheld the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam dated 30.04.2010.

It was claimed that the impugned order was not valid. Under Sections 48 and 49-B of the Act, it is for the owner of the vehicle to prove that he

had no knowledge in the vehicle being used for an offence involving the Forest Act, despite his necessary 5 precaution, the vehicle was used for

such an offence. This position of law was also clarified by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A.K. Raju and Others, .

Notwithstanding the same, the learned principal Sessions Judge held that the confiscation order passed by the Petitioner was liable to be set aside.

He held that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam dated 15.04.2020 to return the vehicle to the first Respondent

for interim custody with certain conditions was done only after notice. Since the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was not

challenged, the same is valid. The learned Judicial Magistrate had considered the relevant documents produced by the first Respondent regarding

the ownership of the vehicle and the order of confiscation was made in contravention of the earlier order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, which

is still in force. In view of the same, confiscation order was set aside.

In the present case, it is unnecessary to go behind the order passed by the second Respondent Principal Sessions Judge as he had merely

confirmed the order of Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalaym who himself 6 has given only interim custody of the vehicle. It is needless to state if the

confiscated vehicle are in the custody of the department and if the vehicle was not maintained properly and ultimately, if the owner of the vehicle

succeeds in the case, the very worth of the vehicle will go down considerably. Therefore, even pending further trial on the criminal case, the vehicle

can always be released by imposing suitable conditions. It is needless to state it will be without prejudice to the outcome of the criminal case.

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the second Respondent especially when the second Respondent had recorded

that earlier direction issued by the Judicial Magistrate was still in force. Therefore, no confiscation order could have been passed validly by the

authorities. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.