Jharkhand High Court
Sheikh Kalim ? Md.Kalim vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 7 April, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2018 (2) AJR 176
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 315 of 2010
---------
Sheikh Kalim @ Md. Kalim, S/o Late Sheikh Md. Hussain,
R/o Village- Banaso, P.O. & P.S.- Bishnugarh, District-
Hazaribagh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Revisional Authority-
Cum-Chief Secretary, Forest & Environment Department,
Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.
3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh (West Division),
Department of Forest, Hazaribagh.
4. The Officer Incharge, Gorhar Police Station, Hazaribagh
... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binod Singh, S.C.(L&C)
---------
09/07.04.2017I.A. No. 5692 of 2015 This Interlocutory Application has been filed for substitution of the petitioner.
It appears that the original petitioner had died on 29.07.2013 and sought to be substituted by his son namely Sohebullah.
In view of the averments made in the instant application the same is allowed.
Let the name of the petitioner be substituted by his son Sohebullah.
W.P.(Cr.) No. 315 of 2010Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Singh, Learned S.C.(L&C) for the State.
In this application the petitioner has challenged the order of confiscation passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh as also by the Revisional Authority.
It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration no. BR-13(B)-7925. It has been submitted that the petitioner does not have any concern with the coal in question -2- and merely on the basis of the statement of the driver of the vehicle the petitioner has been implicated and the vehicle confiscated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle was in the custody of the driver and therefore in such circumstance the petitioner cannot be penalized by confiscating his vehicle.
Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C. (L&C) for the State has supported the impugned order.
It appears that a First Information Report being Gorhar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2003 was instituted on the allegation that some trucks were transporting coal by illegal means which included the truck of the petitioner bearing registration no. BR- 13(B)-7925. The First Information Report was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 414 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. The confiscation proceeding was initiated by the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh, West Forest Division-cum-Confiscating Authority who vide order dated 05.08.2004 had passed an order confiscating the vehicle in question. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the confiscating authority the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh which was also dismissed on 06.09.2005. The revision application was filed before the Revisional Authority- cum-Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi which also met with the same fate vide order dated 11.05.2010.
It appears that the allegation made was with respect to transportation of coal illegally mined from the closed mines inside the forest area and the truck bearing registration no. BR- 13(B)-7925 of which the petitioner claims himself to be the owner was also involved in illegal transportation of coal. No documents at the time of seizure could be produced by the driver and the statement of the driver was recorded in which it was categorically stated that the coal was being transported at the behest of some persons who used to indulge in such illegal activities. The original petitioner had failed to prove any -3- document with respect to the transportation of coal and therefore it was deduced that the coal was being illegally transported in the vehicle of the original petitioner.
Such circumstances have rightly been considered by the Confiscating Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority while confiscating the vehicle. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise, this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Alok/-