Full Judgment
Oral Judgment:
The Tree Officer, on 21st December, 2002, passed order confiscating truck bearing registration No.MH-26-B-3482 in terms of Section 4 of Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964, for transporting mango tree stems, weighing around 8 to 9 tons.
2. Rule was issued on 5th April, 2003, interim relief was refused. The truck in question is not with the petitioner.
3. On 15th May, 2001, the truck bearing registration No.MH-26-B-3482 was noticed transporting mango stems. It was intercepted. It was without any permit. The driver of truck informed that he has no valid authorisation issued by competent authority. Resultantly, offence vide Crime No.1 of 2001 dated 15th May, 2001 was registered in terms of Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act having committed breach of Section 3 thereof. Truck was handed over to Police Patil, Adampur and receipt was obtained. However, after some time, truck was, illegally, removed from the possession of Police Patil, Adampur which was chased. However, driver of truck assaulted the Forest Officials and removed the truck. This resulted in lodging of F.I.R. on 16th May, 2001 at Police Station, Ramtirth. Police again took charge of the truck.
4. Mr.Chandole questions these affairs on the ground of that seizure is illegal. He says, there should not be subsequent F.I.R. and if it is there, then panchnama, seizure memo referred by Forest Authority, is illegal.
5. The second event is illustrated above. It leaves no doubt as to how first Forest Officer intercepted the truck, then it was illegally attempted to be taken away, the chase and then prosecution initiated by Forest Officials for offence under Sections 353, 504, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Tree Officer had, under Section 4 of Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964, having noticed that the truck was carrying / transporting mango trees without any permit, passed the order. The order was after hearing the truck owner. Subsequent change of registration number will not deflect the powers exercised by the Tree Officer. It was not a case of exercising powers under Indian Forest Act and contemplated action under Section 61-A thereof, as desired by the petitioner.
6. In the situation, I do not see any error in the order questioned. Writ Petition is dismissed.
Rule discharged.