Peter Bara Vs. the State of Jharkhand,

Peter Bara vs The State of Jharkhand, ;The Revisional Officer-cum-secretary, Forest and Environment Department, ;t

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Jharkhand Decided Nov 05, 2008

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/523145

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/523145
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: M.Y. Eqbal and; D.K. Sinha, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 05, 2008
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Peter Bara

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand, ;The Revisional Officer-cum-secretary, Forest and Environment Department, ;t

Legal References

Reported In: [2009(1)JCR543(Jhr)]

Excerpt

.....extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - learned counsel submitted that the entire confiscation proceedings initiated against the appellant is bad in law and is in violation of section52 of the indian forest..........of bijia dam. the driver could not produce any paper regarding the timber. hence, the officer-in-charge seized the truck along with semal wood and the driver was taken into custody. the police registered case under section 414 of the indian penal code and sections 33/41/42 of the indian forest act. on the basis of seizure by the police, a confiscation proceeding was initiated by the authorised officer-cum-divisional forest officer, gumla under section 52 of the indian forest act.3. in the said confiscation proceeding, in spite of service of notice, the appellant did not appear and ultimately the authorised officer on the basis of evidence, passed the order confiscating the truck and the seized goods. aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal being appeal no. 05 of 2002-03 and thereafter revision, but both the appeal and the revision were dismissed and the order of confiscating authority was confirmed. the appellant had challenged the said order by filing a writ petition being w.p. (c) no. 6303 of 2005 which was dismissed by the learned single jude in terms of the impugned judgment and order dated 28.3.2006. the learned single judge refused to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities in confiscating proceedings.4. mr. arshad hussain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned orders as being illegal and without jurisdiction. learned counsel submitted that the entire confiscation proceedings initiated against the appellant is bad in law and is in violation of section52 of the indian forest act. learned counsel submitted that neither there is seizure by the forest officials nor there was production of vehicle before the confiscating authority and, therefore, the initiation of confiscation proceeding itself is without jurisdiction.5. from perusal of the records, it appears that the confiscation proceeding was initiated on the basis of prosecution report submitted by the officer-in-charge of the police station......

Full Judgment

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.3.2006 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6303 of 2005 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant.

2. The appellant is the owner of Truck No. BRV-9293. On 10.12.1999, the police while patrolling on Pandari Pani-Jaldega Road stopped the aforementioned truck which was loaded with 30 pieces of semal wood. The driver told the police that the wood had been brought illegally from the forest of Bijia Dam. The driver could not produce any paper regarding the timber. Hence, the Officer-in-Charge seized the truck along with semal wood and the driver was taken into custody. The police registered case under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 33/41/42 of the Indian Forest Act. On the basis of seizure by the police, a confiscation proceeding was initiated by the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Gumla under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act.

3. In the said confiscation proceeding, in spite of service of notice, the appellant did not appear and ultimately the Authorised Officer on the basis of evidence, passed the order confiscating the truck and the seized goods. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal being Appeal No. 05 of 2002-03 and thereafter revision, but both the appeal and the revision were dismissed and the order of confiscating authority was confirmed. The appellant had challenged the said order by filing a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 6303 of 2005 which was dismissed by the learned Single Jude in terms of the impugned judgment and order dated 28.3.2006. The learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities in confiscating proceedings.

4. Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned orders as being illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the entire confiscation proceedings initiated against the appellant is bad in law and is in violation of Section52 of the Indian Forest Act. Learned Counsel submitted that neither there is seizure by the Forest Officials nor there was production of vehicle before the confiscating Authority and, therefore, the initiation of confiscation proceeding itself is without jurisdiction.

5. From perusal of the records, it appears that the confiscation proceeding was initiated on the basis of prosecution report submitted by the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station. The Police Officer while patrolling on the road stopped the truck in question which was loaded with 30 pieces of simal wood. The driver told the Police Officer that the wood has been brought illegally from the forest and no document or paper regarding the timber was produced.

6. Hence, the truck along with the timbers were seized. The contention of the appellant that since the seizure was not made by the Forest Officer, no confiscation proceeding could have been initiated, cannot be accepted. Section 52 of the Act reads as under:

52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation.-(I) When there is reason to believe that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of any forest- produce, such product, together with all tools, boats, carts or cattle used in committing any such offence, may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer.

(2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized, and shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made:

Provided that, when the forest-produce with respect to which such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of Government, and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to his official superior.

7. The aforesaid Section 52 was substituted by Bihar Amendment which also provides that whenever a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such forest produce together with the vehicle may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. It further provides that such Forest Officer or the Police Officer shall produce the property seized or the seizure-report on the basis of which the confiscating authority will initiate confiscation proceeding.

8. In our considered opinion, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in initiation of confiscation proceeding, which is in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly did not interfere with the impugned orders passed by the confiscating authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority, who came to a concurrent finding with regard to the forest offence committed by the appellant

9. This appeal has, therefore, got no merit, which is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2008 Same Parties Peter Bara vs The State of Jharkhand, ;The Revisional Officer... Same Subject Criminal Same Judge M.Y. Eqbal and; D.K. Sinha, JJ.

Criminal