State of H.P. and Another vs Gian Chand

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The State is in revision against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, camp at Nalagarh in appeal having been preferred by the Respondent herein against the order passed by the Authorized Officer (Divisional Forest Officer, Nalagarh) u/s 52A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by H.P. Second Amendment (Act No. 15 of 1991) (herein after referred to as "Act"), directing the confiscation of tractor trolly No. HIA-6290 involved in the offence of transporting illicit timber. Respondent appealed to the learned Sessions Judge u/s 59(2) of the Act. The learned Appellate Court held that the statutory provisions of the Act have not been complied with the order can not be sustained. The State is now in appeal. I need not to go into the facts of the case, as the matter securely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in Cr. Revision No. 30 of 1994 decided on 7th November, 1997 titled State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dhanwant Singh. This Court, considering the provisions of Section 59 of the Act holds as under:

Two new Sections, namely, Sections 59A and 59B also came to be inserted in the Principal Act by the Amending Act. Sections 59-A and 59-B so inserted, read:

"59-A. Revision.-Any forest officer not below the rank of Conservator of Forests, specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf by notification published in the Official Gazette, may, before the expiry of thirty days from the date of order of the authorized officer u/s 52-A, suo motu call for and examine the records of that order and may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and may pass such orders as he deems fit;

Provided that no order prejudicial to a person shall be passed under this section without giving him an opportunity of being heard.

59-B. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases.-Whenever any timber (excluding fuelwood), resin, khair wood and katha together with any tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle used in committing any forest offence is seized u/s 52, the authorized officer under Sub-section (1) of Section 29A or the Sessions Judge hearing an appeal under Sub-section (2) of Section 59 shall have, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, any other officer, Court, Tribunal or authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make order with regard to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property.

I do not find that it is a fit case where I should exercise powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This revision petition is accordingly disposed of.

This order will not pre-empt/overrule any directions which have been issued in the criminal cases relating to the confiscation of the timber.