State of H.P. vs Ram Sarup

Surinder Singh J.

State felt aggrieved by the release of the tractor of Respondent vide judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge passed in criminal appeal No. 10-NL/10 of 1999, u/s 59 of the Indian Forest Act, in short the ''Act'', filed by Respondent Ram Sarup against the confiscation of his tractor, which was allegedly found transporting 143 planks of sawn, shisham wood in the tractor trolley.

The tractor was ordered to be confiscated without issuing notice to the owner of the tractor, by the trial Court but the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal relied upon the judgment of this Court in Cr. Law Reported 1989 (2) 102: State v. Surinder Lal Sood and Ors. 1989 (2) SLC 4, held that no permit was required for transporting the wood within the same forest Division.

The record of the trial Court was called for. The learned trial court had convicted and sentenced Rameshwar and Ajit Singh accused persons and in appeal they were also acquitted on the ground that there was no requirement of the permit as such they committed no offence. Thus, while deciding the appeal of Ram Sarup, the owner of the tractor, u/s 59 of the Act, learned Additional Sessions Judge held that since no forest offence was made out and there was no requirement of law to take pass or permit for movement of the timber from the saw mill to the house of the owner, the tractor could not have been confiscated.

Ram Sarup was neither accused nor a witness of the prosecution. Admittedly, tractor in question belonged to him which was seized and later released to him on Sapurdari.

It was incumbent upon the learned trial Court, before passing the order of confiscation to have issued show-cause notice to him to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

It is a settled principle of natural justice that no one can be condemned unheard. Thus, the learned trial Court committed the breach of aforesaid principle. Therefore, impugned order could not have been upheld in appeal. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge finding that even no case under the Forest Act was made out against the accused persons, therefore, the confiscation of the tractor belonging to the Appellant without any basis was also wrong.

In fact, the course which was open to the first appellate Court was to set aside the order of confiscation and then remand the case back to the learned trial Court for issuing the show-cause notice to the owner of the tractor and/or any other person entitled for its possession and then should have decided about the matter in accordance with law. But now after the lapse of about 16 years, more specifically when there is no appeal against the acquittal of the Respondents and also on the finding that there was no movement of the tractor from one revenue estate to another which requires permission thus no forest offence is made out, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the case to the learned trial Court to hear the Respondent on the question of confiscation of the vehicle. Therefore, in my opinion, no interference is called for in the judgment/order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in criminal appeal No. 10-NL/10/1999. The petition stands disposed of with the above observations.

Record of the court below be sent down.