Madhya Pradesh High Court
Visvanath Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 8 February, 2017
1
M.Cr.C.No.924/2016
(Vishwanath Singh v. State of M.P.)
08/02/2017
Shri J.S. Kushwaha, Counsel for the applicant
Shri Arun Barua, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
With the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 16-1- 2016 passed by Xth A.S.J. Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 495 of 15 by which the order dated 18- 8-2015 passed by Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 22/2015 was affirmed. The Appellate Authority by order dated 18-8-2015 had affirmed the order 13-4- 2015 passed by the Authorized Authority/ Superintendent National Chambal Abhyaran, Devri, Morena.
The facts necessary for the disposal of this application in short are that on 24-2-2015, on written information sent by the Police, one Shri Murari Lal Pachouri, Forest Guard under the orders of Game Ranger, Devari went to the Toll Tax Barrier, Morena and found that one dumper loaded with sand of Chambel River was standing. The driver of dumper No. MP07 GA 3492 informed his name as Rambharat and could not produce any document or the Royalty Receipt. The Seizure memo was prepared on the spot and other formalities were completed. Forest offence was registered against the driver of the dumper. The dumper was seized 2 M.Cr.C.No.924/2016 (Vishwanath Singh v. State of M.P.) and information was given to J.M.F.C. Morena. Sample of the sand loaded in the dumper was taken and spot memo was prepared. A show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 12-3-2015 giving him 7 days time to submit his reply. After the recording of evidence, it was found that the dumper was illegally transporting Sand from Piparai aea of Rajghat. Accordingly, the order of confiscation of the dumper no. MP 07 GA 3492 was passed. Being aggrieved by the order of the Authorized Authority, the applicant filed an appeal, which too was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 18-8-2015.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the applicant filed a Criminal Revision which too suffered dismissal by order dated 16-1- 2016 passed by Xth A.S.J., Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 495/2015.
Hence, this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order of the Revisional Court as well as of the Forest Authorities.
It is contended by the Counsel for the applicant that there is nothing on record that the driver of the dumper was ever prosecuted for having committed a Forest Offence and therefore, unless and until, it is found that a forest offence has been committed, the dumper cannot be confiscated. Further it is submitted that the dumper was seized under Sections 27,29,50,51,52 of Wild Life 3 M.Cr.C.No.924/2016 (Vishwanath Singh v. State of M.P.) Protection Act and under Section 41 and 52 of Indian Forest Act. As the dumper was seized outside the limits of the sanctuary, therefore no offences punishable under Sections 27,29,50,51,52 of Wild Life Protection Act or under Section 41 and 52 of Indian Forest Act were made out.
Per Contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent that after the dumper was caught at the Toll Tax Barrier, an information was given to the Forest Officials and the dumper was seized and the sample of the sand loaded in the dumper was taken and on comparison it was found that the said sand was loaded from Piparai area of Rajghat. Thus, merely because the dumper was caught outside the limits of sanctuary would not mean that no offence under Sections 27,29,50,51,52 of Wild Life Protection Act or under Section 41 and 52 of Indian Forest Act can be registered.
Heard, the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is clear that on 24-2-2015, on the information given by the police, the Forest Guard seized the dumper in question from Toll Tax Barrier and it was found that it was loaded with sand. The Driver could not produce any document or Royalty Receipt to show that the sand was being transported legally. Even the applicant or the driver could not point out that from where the sand was loaded. On the contrary, when the sample of the 4 M.Cr.C.No.924/2016 (Vishwanath Singh v. State of M.P.) sand which was loaded in the dumper was compared with the sand available on the banks of river, then it was found that the sand which was loaded on the dumper was matching with the sand available in the Piparai area of Rajghat. Merely the truck succeeded in coming out of the limits of sanctuary, would not mean that no offence under Sections 27,29,50,51,52 of Wild Life Protection Act or under Section 41 and 52 of Indian Forest Act can be made out even when it is found that the sand has been collected from the area falling within the sanctuary. Thus, the contention of the applicant that since, the dumper was caught outside the area of the sanctuary therefore, no offence under Sections 27,29,50,51,52 of Wild Life Protection Act or under Section 41 and 52 of Indian Forest Act can be said to have been committed cannot be accepted and hence, it is rejected.
The next contention of the Counsel for the applicant is that there is nothing on record to show that any criminal case was registered against the driver of the truck and unless and until, the driver is held guilty for committing Forest Offence, the dumper in question cannot be confiscated.
The Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer and another Vs. G.V. Sudhakar Rao and another (AIR 1986 SC 328) has held as under :
".........The conferral of power of 5 M.Cr.C.No.924/2016 (Vishwanath Singh v. State of M.P.) confiscation of seized timber or forest produce and the implements, etc., on the Authorized Officer under sub-s. (2A) of S. 44 of the Act on his being satisfied that a forest offence had been committed in respect thereof is not dependent upon whether a criminal prosecution for commission of a forest offence has been launched against the offender or not. It is a separate and distinct proceeding from that of a trial before the Court for commission of an offence. Under sub-s. (2A) of S. 44 of the Act, where a Forest Officer makes report of seizure of any timber or forest produce and produces the seized timber before the Authorized Officer along with a report under S. 44(2), the Authorized Officer can direct confiscation to Government of such timber or forest produce and the implements, etc., if he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, irrespective of the fact whether the accused is facing a trial before a Magistrate for the commission of a forest offence under S. 20 or 29 of the Act."
Thus, it is clear that criminal prosecution for commission of a forest offence is not a sine qua non for confiscation of the vehicle used for illegally transporting the forest produce. Thus, even if assuming that the driver of the dumper has not been prosecuted by the Forest Authorities for having committed forest offence, even then the dumper can be confiscated if the Authorized officer was of the view that forest offence has been committed.
It is then, submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that the only allegation is that the sand 6 M.Cr.C.No.924/2016 (Vishwanath Singh v. State of M.P.) was loaded in the dumper therefore, it cannot be said that any forest offence was committed.
Section 2(4) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 defines "Forest Produce" which reads as under :
"(4) "forest-produce" includes--
(a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say:--
timber, charcoal, caoutchouc, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds, 3 [kuth] and myrabolams, and
(b) the following when found in, or brought from a forest, that is to say:--
(i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce not hereinbefore mentioned, of trees,
(ii) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts or produce of such plants,
(iii) wild animals and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax, and all other parts or produce of animals, and
(iv) peat, surface soil, rock, and minerals (including lime-stone, laterite, mineral oils, and all products of mines or quarries);
(v) standing agricultural crops."
Thus, in view of the definition of "produce produce", the surface soil, rock and minerals including all products of mines or quarries would be a forest-produce. Thus, where the sand is collected within the area of a sanctuary, then it would certainly be a forest-produce and therefore, the dumper can be confiscated under Section 52 of Indian Forest Act.
7 M.Cr.C.No.924/2016(Vishwanath Singh v. State of M.P.) Hence, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be clear that the dumper in question was found loaded with sand which was collected from the Piparai area of Rajghat which falls within the area of National Chambel Sanctuary, Distt. Morena and neither the driver of the dumper nor the applicant could produce any document to show that the sand was being transported legally. Hence, in absence of any Royalty Receipt, it is clear that the sand was being transported in an illegal manner and therefore, it can be safely held that a Forest offence was committed by illegally transporting the sand.
Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the considered view that the Court below as well as the Forest Authorities did not commit any illegality while directing for confiscation of dumper bearing registration No. MP 07 GA 3492.
The orders dated 16-1-2016 passed by the Revisional Court as well as the orders dated 18-8- 2015 and 13-4-2015 passed by the Appellate Court and the Authorized Officer, respectively are hereby affirmed.
Hence, this application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
(ra) Judge