Gujarat High Court
Kalubhai vs State on 8 February, 2012
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1620/2007 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1620 of 2007
=========================================================
KALUBHAI
MANSUKHBHAI SOLANKI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
UM SHASTRI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR RC KODEKAR, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1-2,
MR LAUKIK PANTH FOR NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for
Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date
: 08/02/2012
ORAL
ORDER
1. This is a petition under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :
"(A) Declaring that the notice issued at Annexure-A by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Senior Manager (Project) Gandhinagar for confiscating the tractor and trolley of the petitioner on the allegations made therein is illegal, bad, violative of principles of fair play and natural justice and also is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India;
(B) Declaring that the order of the respondent No.3 dated 11.8.2006, confiscating the petitioner's tractor and trolley at Annexure-C as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2006 on 21.7.2007 at Annexure-D are illegal, bad and violative of Articles 14, 16 and19 of the Constitution of India, and also violative of the principles of fair play and natural justice.
(C) That during the pendency and final disposal of this petition the respondents may be directed to release the vehicle namely tractor and trolley attached, on terms that may be deemed reasonable, considering the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. As per case of the petitioner, he is a farmer and doing agricultural work and was the owner of a vehicle, viz., Tractor bearing No.GJ-17-D-4778 and Trolley bearing No.GJ-17-Y-3127. The tractor and trolley were being utilized for the agricultural work in the fields. On 16.7.2006, the petitioner received a notice from the Senior Manager (Project), Deputy Conservator of Forest, Gandhinagar, stating therein that the petitioner has committed an offence under the Forest Act for utilizing the tractor while transporting the stolen wood belonging to the Forest Department. In response to this notice, the petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter the respondents, on 11.8.2006, passed an order of confiscating the tractor and trolley of the petitioner. Against this order, petitioner had preferred Special Criminal Application No.1514 of 2006 before this Court. However, the same was withdrawn with a liberty to file an appeal before the Sessions Judge. Thereafter, an appeal has been preferred before the Sessions Judge. However, the same is also rejected vide order dated 21.7.2007. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents authorities as well as the court of the learned Sessions Judge have not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was a farmer and poor person and the vehicles involved in the incident was required for the agricultural purpose. It is further grievance of the petitioner that despite having deposited the sum of Rs.4575/-, the tractor as well as trolley of the petitioner has been confiscated.
3. None has put an appearance on behalf of the petitioner when this matter is taken up. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Kodekar is appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, while learned counsel, Mr.Laukik Panth has put an appearance on behalf of respondent No.3 - Deputy Conservator of Forest, Gujarat State.
4. It is not in dispute that the tractor and trolley of the petitioner has been confiscated while transporting the wood belonging to the Forest Department. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.4575/- on account of the property and further assessment of Rs.11,925/- has been made against the petitioner for the loss caused to the Government. So the incident is not in dispute. Now it is to be seen whether the Tractor and Trolley have been confiscated as per law and whether some lenient view could have been taken.
5. Section 26, Sub-clause (1) (f) of the Forest Act, 1927 prohibits certain activities on the forest land which is reproduced as under :
"26.
Acts prohibited in such forests :-(1) : Any person who-
(a) --- --- ---
(b) --- --- ---
(c) --- --- ---
(d) --- --- ---
(e) --- --- ---
(f) fells, girdles, lops, or burns any tree or strips off the bark or leaves from, or otherwise damages, the same shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, in addition to such compensation for damage done to the forest as the convicting Court may direct to be paid.
6. Further, Section 41, sub-clause (2)(b) of the Act prohibits the import or export or moving of timber or other forest produce without a pass from an officer duly authorized to issue the same, or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of such pass. Section 52, sub-clauses (1) and (2) and Section 55 of the Act further empowers the forest officials to seize and confiscate the produce as well as vehicle used to carry such produce.
6.1 Still further Sections 61A, 61A(2) and 61D authorize the concerned officer to confiscate vehicle even if the criminal prosecution is not launched. Sections 61A, 61A(2) and 61D reads as under :
"61A.
Confiscation by Forest-officer in certain case.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter or where any other law for the time being in force, where a forest-offence is believed to have been committed in respect of forest-produce which is the property of the State Government, the officer seizing the property under sub-section (1) of section 52 shall, without any unreasonable delay, produce it, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing such offence, before an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette, not being below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as the "authorised officer").
(2) Where an authorised officer seizes under sub-section (1) of section 52, any forest-produce which is the property of the State Government or where any such property is produced before the authorised officer under sub-section (1) and he is satisfied that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of such property such authorised officer may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such forest-offence, order confiscation of the property together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing such offence.
61D.
Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by any order under section 61A or section 61C may, within thirty days from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property to which the order relates has been seized and the Sessions Judge shall, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and the authorised officer or the officer specially empowered under section 61C, as the case may be, pass such order as he may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against."
7. In view of clear cut provisions contained in the Act, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the concerned authorities as well as by the learned Sessions Judge in its decision dated 21.7.2007. For the aforementioned reasons, this petition must fail and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(MOHINDER PAL, J.) (vipul) Top