Israr Mohd @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the revisional court’), whereby the criminal revision petition No.32/2016

filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the vehicle-Mini Truck Tata 407 bearing Registration No. RJ 27-G-4849 was seized in

connection with a case No.170/14 which is pending trial in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Salumber, District Udaipur for the

offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953.

It is submitted that the petitioner, being the registered owner of the said Truck, sought custody of it by filing an application before the Additional Forest

Conservator, Salumber, however, Additional Forest Conservator, Salumber vide its order dated 04.03.2015 has dismissed the application while

observing that as the vehicle in question was involved in transporting of forest product, the same is liable to be confiscated.

Against the order passed by the Additional Forest Conservator, Salumber dated 04.03.2015, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Forest

Conservator, Udaipur, however, the same has also been dismissed on 03.08.2016.

Thereafter the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying of Section 68 of the Forest Act has argued that any property seized under Forest Act, which is liable

to be confiscated, can be released on payment of its estimated value. It is submitted that the Additional Forest Conservator, Salumber and Chief

Forest Conservator, Udaipur have not considered this aspect of the matter and has passed a blanket order for confiscating the vehicle.

In support of the above contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in

SBCWP No.87/2016 decided on 14.02.2018.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Forest Department has vehemently opposed this criminal misc. petition, however, Mr. S.R. Paliwal is not in a

position to dispute the fact that in identical matter, this Court has ordered for releasing the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner therein on

depositing the amount of Rs.50,000/-.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No.87/2016 has passed the following order:-

“Heard.

The petitioner herein is the registered owner of a Pick-up vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-18-GA-2454. The said vehicle was apprehended by staff

of the Police Station Hamirwas, District Churu on 25.08.2013 while being driven by the petitioner himself and transporting raw khejri wood (forest

produce) without a transit permit. Accordingly, the petitioner was booked for the offences under Sections 41 and 42/77 of the Rajasthan Forest Act

and an FIR No.204/2013 was registered against him and the vehicle was seized.

In the criminal case registered against the petitioner, he stands convicted by the Gram Nyayalaya, Rajgarh, District Churu vide judgment dated

20.09.2013. While passing the said judgment, the trial court gave liberty to the competent forest officer to pass an order regarding confiscation or

otherwise of the offending vehicle as per the provisions of the Forest Act. In furtherance of the said direction, the Forest Officer-cum- ACF, Churu

passed an order dated 03.12.2013 and directed confiscation of the offending vehicle. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the said order by filing a

revision No.10/2014 which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner vide order dated 21.05.2014. These two orders are

assailed in the instant writ petition.

Though the order of confiscation has been challenged on merits as well as on the so-called ground of infractions/shortcomings in the procedure of

confiscation but, while advancing the arguments and after considering the reply submitted by Shri S.R. Paliwal, Dy. G.C. on behalf of the Forest

Department, Shri Joshi candidly conceded that he does not have much to say on merits and thus, he pleaded that a reasonable view be taken and the

offending vehicle, which is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner, be released upon payment of apposite fine to be quantified by the Court.

Shri S.R. Paliwal, learned Dy. Government Counsel, though vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel but, he too

is not in a position to dispute that as per Section 68 of the Forest Act which reads as under:-

“68.Power to compound offence.- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, empower a Forest Officer-

(a) to accept from any person against whomreasonable suspicion exists that he has committed any forest offence, other than an offence specified in

Section 62 or Section 63, a sum of money by way of compensation for the offence which such person is suspected to have committed, and

(b) when any property has been seized as liableto confiscation, to release the same on payment of the value thereof as estimated by such officer.

(2) On the payment of such sum of money, or suchvalue, or both, as the case may be, to such officer, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be

discharged, the property, if any seized shall be released, and no further proceeding shall be taken against such person or property.

(3) A Forest Officer shall not be empowered under thissection unless he is a Forest Officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Ranger and is in receipt

of a monthly salary amounting to at least one hundred rupees, and the sum of money accepted as compensation under clause (a) of sub-section (1)

shall in no case exceed the sum of fifty rupees.â€​

Any property seized under the Forest Act and liable to be confiscated, can be released on payment of its estimated value. Manifestly thus, the law

provides for release of the property/ vehicle seized under the Forest Act on payment of its value which has to be assessed looking to its condition. The

quantification of the value has been left at the discretion of the authorised officer. In the case at hand, the authorised officer did not consider this

aspect of the matter and has passed a blanket order for confiscating the vehicle. No option was given to the petitioner to pay the value of the vehicle

in lieu of releasing the same. Needless to say that seized vehicle, which is reportedly lying in open condition exposed to elements at the police station,

is bound to lose its value and likely to become a junk because of exposure and by efflux of time and would result into national wastage. Section 68 of

the Forest Act, referred to supra, confers discretion with the Forest Officer to compound the offence and release the confiscated vehicle upon

deposition of the value thereof to be estimated by such officer.

As the vehicle was seized way back in the year 2013 and, since the authorised officer never made any estimation of the value thereof, this Court feels

that the ends of justice would be served while imposing a condition under Section 68(1)(b) of the Forest Act, 1953 that the offending vehicle shall be

released to the petitioner upon his depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the ACF, Churu. The impugned orders are modified accordingly.

With these observations and directions, the instant writ petition is partly allowed.â€​

The controversy involved in this criminal misc. petition is similar to the above referred case decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Hence,

this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside.

The vehicle in question was seized in the year 2014 and the manufacturing year of the vehicle in question is 2014. The authorized officer has not made

any estimation of the value of the vehicle in question, however, looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it proper to

order for releasing the vehicle in question to the petitioner upon depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the Additional Forest Conservator, Salumber.

It is informed that the vehicle is lying in the Police Station Zallara, District Udaipur. If the petitioner deposits Rs.50,000/as directed above, Additional

Forest Conservator, Salumber shall issue a release order and on producing the same, the vehicle be released.

No order as to costs.