IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Revision No. 115 of 2009. Date of decision 24.2.2010. Kuldip Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner Mr. R.D.Koundal, Advocate. For the respondent Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Authorized Officer –cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Hamirpur, ordering confiscation of Tractor No. HP 22-1229 and Trolley No. HP 21- 0633 being driven by Virender Singh. The Authorized Officer, in his order notes the facts, namely that on 4.3.2003, the Range Officer, Barsar registered a case for 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - illicit felling/ illegal transportation and theft of about three Cheel trees which had been converted into 17 sleepers. It is alleged that Shri Tilak Raj, Forest Range Officer, Barsar, along with Desh Raj, Deputy Ranger, Block Officer, Hareta and Tulsi Ram, Incharge, Paniali beat seized Tractor and Trolley described above at about 10.15 P.M. on 10.2.2003 which contained 17 cheel sleepers. The driver Virender Kumar could not produce any valid permit for transportation the sleepers. A show cause notice under Section 52(A) of the Indian Forest Act was issued to the accused Virender Kumar and Kuldip Kumar along with other accused to show cause as to why the Tractor and Trolley should not be confiscated as they were involved in illicit transportation of stolen timber. Shri Kuldip Singh admitted the ownership of the tractor and stated that it was being used for agricultural purposes only. His case was that on 10.2.2003, he was in Hoshiarpur and it was not in his knowledge whether the Tractor and Trolley were being used for transportation of illicit timber. The statements of the other witnesses were also recorded. The officer came to the conclusion that the Tractor and Trolley required to be confiscated as they were being used contrary to - 3 - the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment in appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General and have gone through the record. It is undisputed before me that all the accused, namely Surinder Kumar, Satish Kumar, Raj Kumar and Virender Kumar who were charged for offences under Sections 32, 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act have since been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barsar by his judgment dated 17.7.2006. It is also undisputed that this judgment has not been challenged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have ignored the fact that the owner of the Tractor and Trolley had no knowledge about the so called illegal transportation of the timber. In these circumstances, there was no jurisdiction with the Authorized Officer to have ordered the confiscation of the Tractor and Trolley. He submits that knowledge regarding illicit transportation of timber was central and paramount for exercise of jurisdiction to order confiscation of the Tractor and Trolley by the Authorized Officer. In the circumstances, he - 4 - relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Forest Conservator and others v. Sharad Ramchandra Kale, AIR 1998 SC 2927, holding: “2. The truck of the respondent was ordered to be confiscated by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, as it was found involved in commission of a forest offence. That order was confirmed by the Conservator of Forest. Against his order, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court but it was dismissed. Therefore, he approached the High Court with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the authorities had failed to establish that the owner of the truck had any knowledge that his truck was likely to be used for carrying forest produce in contravention of the provision of the Forest Act. This finding was based upon the evidence on the record. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to interfere with such finding.” From the record, I find that the plea taken by the petitioner is justified. The learned Additional Sessions Judge or the - 5 - Authorized Officer have not applied their mind to the facts of the case. What was primary for establishing criminality, that is knowledge regarding vehicle(s) used for transportation of illicit timber, has not been established on record. This can be ascertained by mere reading of the facts of the case and not by detailed examination of the evidence on record. Secondly, all the accused have been acquitted by the trial Court and no appeal has been preferred. In these circumstances, the judgment of the Court below cannot be sustained which is quashed and set aside. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. February 24, 2010 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.