Jamuna Prasad Singh and Another vs State of Bihar and Others

In this writ petition, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing of seizure of 37 bags of sandal woods in connection with case No. 30IIC/93 pending in the court of Respondent No. 4 as well as for quashing of the confiscation proceeding initiated by Respondent No. 3 in respect of the aforesaid seized articles and for a direction to the Respondents to release the seized 37 bags of the said sandal woods.

The short facts enumerated in this writ petition are as follows:

A case appears to have been registered on the basis of a report of the Forest Beat Officer, Khunti (Respondent No. 2) on the allegation, inter alia, that upon receipt of information that sandal woods, cut into pieces had been kept behind the line hotel at village Kujla, Khunti-Torpa Road, he alongwith other personnels of the Forest Department went there and seized the said articles. On enquiry, Kailash Mahto told that the Petitioners had purchased the sandal woods from the local villagers and they were trying to transport the same. Thereafter the said 37 bags of sandal woods were seized and were kept in the custody of the Forest Range Officer. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case, being Case No. 3OIIC/93 was instituted.

The seizure of the aforesaid sandal wood was reported to Respondent No. 3, who initiated a confiscation proceeding and sent an information to the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, as per the provision of Section 52(4)(A) of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989 hereinafter to be referred to as the 1989 Act'' or short).

The case of the Petitioners, in brief, is that by virtue of a sale deed executed on 4.2.1993, Kali Mahto and Laxmi Mahto agreed to sell four standing Chandan trees to Petitioner No. 1 from plot No. 1804, Khata No. 11, village Kujla for a sum of Rs. 15,000/ -. Similarly, by virtue of Anr. sale deed executed on 4.2.1993, Bishwanath Mahto and Srinath Mahto agreed to sell five standing Chandan trees to Petitioner No. 2 from plot No. 1804, Khata No. 11 of village Karmat and for a sum of Rs. 12,000/ -. The. Petitioners thereafter had obtained a no objection certificate from the Circle Officer, Murhu, on 12.2.1993 showing that the Circle Officer had no objection if the nine sandal wood trees were sold by the vendees to the Petitioners. The aforesaid sale deeds and no objection certificate have been filed in this writ petition as Annexures-5, 6 and 7 respectively. After obtaining no objection certificate, the Petitioners applied for issuance of transit permit on 20.2.1993 before the Range Officer, Khunti for transporting the aforesaid sandal woods from village Kujla to Kannauj, district Farukhabad (Uttar Pradesh). A copy of the said application dated 20.2.1993 is Annexure 8 to this writ petition. Thereafter by Annexure 9 to this writ petition, the Assistant Conservator of Forest on 27.2.1993 recommended for issuance of transit permit as applied for by the Petitioners. Meanwhile, it appears that the said sandal woods which were cut into pieces and were being transported, were seized which is the subject matter of this writ petition.

It is stated on behalf of the Petitioners that since the sandal woods in question have been cut from the raiyati land of villagers and since it is not a forest produce, it could not have been seized and such seizure is illegal and liable to be quashed. It has also been stated that Respondent No. 2 had no authority in law to seize the sandal woods, since those were cut from the raiyati lands/plots of the villagers. It has also been contended that since the woods in question were not forest produce, no confiscation proceeding could have been initialed for confiscating the 37 bags of sandal woods, seized in this case. It has also been stated that the Forest Beat Officer was not the competent authority to seize the sandal woods aforesaid in this case and as such the whole seizure becomes bad in law and cannot be given effect to.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent-State wherein it has been stated that for carrying forest produce even from a raiyuti land, transit permit is required and since in this case, there was no transit permit, the Petitioners have committed forest offence It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that as per the Circular, contained in Annexure-C, raiyats were required to sell the trees or forest produce to the State Trading Corporation and no private individual could have purchased the same.

In this case, it is an admitted fact that the sandal woods in question were purchased from the respective raiyats and those were being transported without transit permit, though the Petitioners had applied for the same.

Now the basic question to be determined in this case is as to whether sandal woods from raiyati land can be transported without obtaining transit permit and, therefore, we need not go into the other aspects of the matter in detail.

Under Rule 6.6 of the Bihar Timber and Other Forest Produce (Regulation of Transit Rules) 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the Rules'' for short), framed under Sections 41, 42 and 76 of the 1989 Act, a raiyat can apply for issuance of transit permit for transporting timber from one place to Anr. . From Rule 6.6 of the said Rules, we find that even when timber has been purchased or sold from a private land by the owner of the timber and it is to be transported then transit permit is required and an application for the same has to be made. The said Rule, therefore, binds a person even for transportation of limber from private land and as per the provision transit permit has to be obtained. In this case admittedly, no transit permit was issued favour of the Petitioners, though they have plied for the same and it was recommended by the Assistant Conservator of Forests. Sine the woods in question were being transports in violation of the said Rules without trans permit, the Petitioners had committed forest offence and were liable to be prosecuted. Section 52 of the 1989 Act contemplates that when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, the same shall be seized any forest officer or a police officer. We find that the woods in question were being transported in this case without obtaining transit permit. The Petitioners, therefore, have committed a forest offence and thus the wood in question were liable to be seized.

So far the submission of Mr. Dayal learned Counsel for the Petitioners, that Forest Beat Officer was not competent to seize the woods in question as he was not a Forest Officer is concerned, we find from the statements made in paragraph 4 of supplementary counter affidavit that a Beat Officer is a Forester and when he is in-charge of beat, he is called as Beat Officer and he is a Forest Officer under the definition of ''Forest Officer'' as defined in the Indian Forest Act. notification has been appended to the supplementary counter affidavit as Annexure showing that Foresters have been notified Forest Officers.

In view of the aforesaid statement the notification (Annexure-D), we are satisfied that a Forest Beat Officer is a Forest Officer and he was competent to seize the woods question. As we have noticed above that Petitioners have committed a forest officer the seized woods arc also liable to confiscation proceeding and rightly thereof the confiscation proceeding as contained in Annexure to the writ petition has been initiated case.

In view of the above discussions and (sic)dings, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed, but without costs.