IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 18 of 2013 ----------- Md. Yunus Ansari @ Yunus Ansari @ YunusMian Son of Rahat Ali, resident of village Bagridih, PO & PS Domchanch, District- Koderma …. …. Petitioner --Versus-- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Deptt. of Environment & Forest, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, PO & PS Doranda, Ranchi 2. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, PO, PS & District- Koderma 3. Authorized Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma, PO, PS & District- Koderma …. …. Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the respondents :J.C. to S.C.- II CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA ----------- C.A.V. ON:18/06/2015 PRONOUNCED ON:30/06/2015 Challenge in this writ application is to the order dated 27.01.2012 passed by the respondent no.3 in Confiscation Case No. 11 of 2011 by which the trailer and tractor of the petitioner seized in the case along with eight pieces of Acacia wood has been confiscated in favour of State and the prayer for release of the seized two vehicles, has been rejected and also the order dated 14.11.2012 passed by the respondent no.2- Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, in Confiscation Case no. 10 of 2012 by which the order passed by the respondent no.3 has been upheld.
2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that at the instance of Sub-Inspector of Domchanch Police Station, a case under Section 414 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act being Domchanch P.S. Case No. 51 of 2011 was instituted against the present petitioner, who is the owner of the said tractor, and the driver of the aforesaid vehicle, on the allegation that after cutting Acacia trees standing on the Raiyati land of village Lakshandih and Bagridh, 2 the same was being transported towards Domchanch and for verifying the same, the informant reached at Bagro-Bagridih road and found the stems of those trees loaded on one Mahindra Tractor and trailer and after seeing the police party, the driver of the tractor fled away whereafter, the tractor along with trailer and logs were seized and the instant case was lodged. Later on confiscation proceeding was also initiated bearing no. 11 of 2011. After due investigation, the police finding no complicity of the present petitioner in the said case submitted final form exonerating him from the offences alleged but the charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the vehicle only. It appears from the record that the petitioner after getting the notices of the confiscation proceeding filed his show-cause that the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and the same was given to the driver Shankar Yadav and on the relevant date, cow- dung was being carried on the seized vehicle and after unloading the same, the driver was returning but in the way, the driver went to attend call of nature by stopping his vehicle on road side when some local women, who were carrying eight pieces of Acacia green wood, kept those woods in the seized vehicle but after seeing the police party, they fled away and the said eight pieces of Acaciawoods were recovered by the police.
3. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, seriously contended that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the offence alleged and the police after investigation had submitted the final form but even then the respondent nos. 2 and 3 without appreciating the same rejected the prayer for release of the vehicles. It was also submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the seized Acaciawood and the petitioner being owner of the vehicles the Mahindra tractor bearing registration no. BR-47-1702 and its trailer bearing no. BR-47-1703 had rightly prayed for their release. Further assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel submitted that even if the seized vehicle was involved in transportation of 3 illegally cutting forest produce, for that reason, the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, cannot be held responsible, when the competent court of criminal jurisdiction has already exonerated him from the alleged offence after due investigation.
4. Contrary to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel representing the State submitted that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have rightly rejected the prayer for release and confiscated the tractor and trailer in favour of the State.
5. It appears from the record that after investigation, the police submitted the final form against this petitioner, who is the owner of the seized vehicle exonerating him from the offence and the charge-sheet was only submitted against the driver of the vehicle. After initiation of the confiscation proceeding, the petitioner took part in the said proceeding and filed his show-cause relying upon different paragraphs of the case diary collected by the Investigating Officer but the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma vide his order dated 27.01.2012 passed the order for confiscation of the vehicles and Acaciawood in favour of the State. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma but the appellate court affirmed the order of Divisional Forest Officer without appreciating the fact that the petitioner has already been exonerated of the charges and the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was used without his knowledge or connivance. For better appreciation of the issue involved in this case, I would like to refer the relevant provisions of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 52, which is relevant, is quoted hereinbelow:- “Section 52.- Seizure and its procedure for the property liable for confiscation- (i) …………… (ii) …………… (iii) …………… (iv) No order confiscating any property shall be made under sub-section (3) unless the authorized officer- 4 (a) sends an intimation about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made; (b) issues a notice in writing to the person from whom the property is seized, and to any other person who may appear to the authorized officer to have some interest in such property; (c) affords an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) of making a representation within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the proposed confiscation, and (d) gives to the officer effecting the seizure and the person or persons to whom notice has been issued under clause (b), a hearing on date to be fixed for such purposes. (v) No order of confiscation under sub-section(3) of any tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article (other than the forest-produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub- section(4) proves to the satisfaction of Authorized Officer that any such tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge of connivance or, as the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for commission of forest- offence.” The aforesaid provision clearly mandates that no confiscation shall be made, if any person as referred in sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer that such vehicle was being used without knowledge or connivance of the owner of the vehicle.
7. Obviously, on perusal of the orders of different authorities including the Authorized Officer- cum- Divisional Forest Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, it appears that though this fact was brought to the knowledge of the two authorities that the final form has already been submitted against the petitioner after investigation and the petitioner has been exonerated from the charge and no connivance of this petitioner was found, the two courts declined to release the vehicle in question and confiscated the same in favour of State. The petitioner was exonerated in the concerned case but the two authorities had overcome the said investigation 5 report of the police officers having no materials before it to the contrary. When after due investigation, the charge sheet was submitted only against the driver of the vehicle and not against the owner with a finding that the vehicle was used without any connivance or knowledge of the owner then definitely Sub-Section (5) of Section 52 of Bihar Amendment of the Indian Forest Act, which has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand also, protects the owner from any prosecution and no order of confiscation shall be made. In a case of Assistant Forest Conservator and others Vs. Sharad Ramchandra Kale; [(1998) 1 SCC48, the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided the ratio that when there is no records of any linking regarding knowledge of the vehicle and regarding the offence, then definitely the confiscation is bad. Here in this case, the respondents have not been able to produce any material or statement to show that the vehicle was illegally being used with the knowledge or connivance of the petitioner.
8. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Writ Petition (Cr.) is, thus, allowed. The Order dated 14.11.2012 passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, Koderma in Confiscation Case No. 10 of 2012, as contained in Anneuxre-4, and the order dated 27.01.2012 passed by the Authorised Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma in Confiscation Case No. 11 of 2011, as contained in Annexure-3 are, hereby, set aside and quashed. The respondents are, hereby, directed to release the two vehicles i.e. tractor and trailer seized in connection with Domchanch P.S. Case no. 51 of 2011 and confiscated in the above two proceedings, in favour of this petitioner. (R.N. Verma,J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 30th June, 2015 Ritesh/N.A.F.R.