Tirath Prasad Yadav vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.—By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Criminal Revision No. 171/05, affirming the order dated 16.6.2006 passed by the appellate authority and Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur in Appeal Case No. 28/2005-06 u/s 15-A of the C.G. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (for short `the Adhiniyam, 1969'') read with Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short `the Act, 1927''), applicable to the State of Chhattisgarh amended vide Act 25 of 1983 w.e.f. 1.1.1983, affirming the order dated 20.3.2006 passed by the authorized authority and Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), Kota in Forest Crime No. 299/18 dated 29.10.2005, whereby Tata Pick-up 207 bearing registration number M.P.18-H 3868 has been confiscated.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused all the impugned orders and copies of other documents filed on behalf of the petitioner.

As per copies of the impugned orders, the present petitioner, owner of the aforesaid Tata Pick-up 207, was transporting the forest produce i.e. khambhar and Beeja wood. After registering the forest offence property was seized, show-cause notice was given to the petitioner and after sending intimation for confiscation proceeding and providing opportunity of hearing, aforesaid vehicle has been confiscated by the authorized officer and Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), Kota, which was challenged before the appellate authority and the revisional authority and both the authorities have affirmed the order passed by the authorized officer.

The present petitioner has taken defence that aforesaid forest produce was owned by one Vijay Chabriya, who has loaded it in the vehicle and was kathar and kadam wood, not forest produce. Aforesaid authorized officer had came into conclusion that aforesaid wood was forest produce and order of confiscation has been passed u/s 15 of the Adhiniyam, 1969 read with Section 52 of the Act, 1927.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per impugned orders, Forest Authority has not given any finding that alleged forest produce was the property of the Forest/State Government/Central Government, inter alia, the present petitioner has specifically claimed that alleged wood was owned by one Vijay Chabriya (not by Government), therefore, such property was not liable for confiscation.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State opposes the petition and submits that property was forest produce and the petitioner was transporting the same in violation of the Adhiniyam, 1969, therefore, it was liable for confiscation u/s 15 of the Adhiniyam, 1969.

As per order impugned, order of the appellate authority and order of the authorized officer, specified forest produce was found in the vehicle owned by the present petitioner. At the time of seizure, the petitioner was driving the vehicle and he was in conscious possession of the aforesaid forest produce. The petitioner has claimed that it was forest produce owned by Vinod Chabriya and he was transporting the same at the instance of owner of the forest produce. By confiscating the vehicle the authorities have held that it was forest produce, but have not given any finding that aforesaid forest produce was owned by Government, inter alia, they have not rejected claim of ownership of Vijay Chabriya pleaded and claimed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that aforesaid forest produce was the property of Government.

As per Section 15-D of the Adhiniyam, 1969 and Section 55(1) of the Act, 1927, applicable to the State of Chhattisgarh, if forest produce is not belonging to the Government and in respect of which a forest-offence has been committed, then all tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains and any other articles, shall be liable to confiscation. Section 55(1) of the Act, 1927, applicable to the State of Chhattisgarh, reads as under:-

(1) All timber or forest-produce which is either case is not the property of the Government and in respect of which a forest-offence has been committed, and all tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article, in each case used in committing any forest-offence shall subject to provisions of sections 52, 52A, 52B and 52C, be liable to confiscation upon conviction of then offender for such forest offence.

Provisions of Section 15-D of the Adhiniyam, 1969 reads as under:-

15-D. Confiscation of property when the produce is not the property of Government.-All specified forest produce which in either case is not the property of the Government and in respect of which a contravention of any provision of the Act or the rules made thereunder has been committed and all tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other articles, in each case used in committing such contravention shall, subject to the provisions of sections 15, 15-A, 15-B and 15-C be liable to confiscation upon conviction of the offender for such contravention.

Section 15-D of the Adhiniyam, 1969 is pari materia to the provisions of Section 55(1) of the Act, 1927. As per aforesaid provisions, for confiscation of tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains and other articles in respect of which a contravention of any provision of the Act or the rules made thereunder has been committed, shall be liable to confiscation upon conviction of the offender for such contravention, inter alia, for confiscation of such property under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1969 and the Act, 1927 not belonging to the Government, conviction of the offender is sine quo non.

In the present case, the respondents authorities have failed to show that aforesaid offender has been convicted for contravention of aforesaid provisions. In absence of such proof, confiscation of the vehicle u/s 15 of the Adhiniyam, 1969 read with Section 52 of the Act, 1927 is not sustainable under the law.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Criminal Revision No. 171/05, order dated 16.6.2006 passed by the appellate authority and Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur and order dated 20.3.2006 passed by the Authorized Officer and Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), Kota are hereby quashed. No order as to costs.

Interim application stands disposed of.