IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O No. 120 of 2004 Date of decision: 7.3.2008 Harish Chander …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Authorized Officer, under Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, as amended by the Himachal Pradesh Second Amendment Act of 1991, as also the order passed in appeal by the Sessions Court, whereby his vehicle (Mohindra Pick-up Van) bearing Registration No.HP-33-6495, has been ordered to be confiscated on account of 22 sleepers of Deodar having been transported in its body, in violation of law. 3. Summary of the case, relevant for disposal of the petition, is like this. The vehicle of the petitioner, which was being driven by a driver engaged by him, was intercepted at a forest barrier in Mandi District. It was found to be carrying 22 sleepers, which bore TD hammer mark, meaning thereby that the property was private property and not the property of the State Government. The timber alongwith the vehicle was seized by the concerned Authorised Officer. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 4. Seizure was reported to the Divisional Forest Officer, Mandi. He issued show cause notice to the petitioner. Petitioner appeared before him and claimed that he had no knowledge that the timber was being carried illegally in the vehicle, in question. The Authorised Officer recorded evidence and came to the conclusion that even though the petitioner himself might not have had the knowledge that the timber was being transported illegally, his driver, who was his authorized agent, did have such knowledge and, therefore, the plea raised by him was not tenable. Consequently, the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated. 5. Petitioner filed an appeal in the Sessions Court, which was assigned to the Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal has been dismissed with the same reasoning as was given by the Authorised Officer, in support of his confiscation order. 6. I have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. A bare reading of the provision of Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, as amended by the Himachal Pradesh Second Amendment Act, 1991, makes it clear that the Authorised Officer has the jurisdiction to pass order only where the forest produce, in respect of which offence is alleged to have been committed, belongs to the State Government. In the present case, from the order of the Authorised Officer as also the judgment of the first appellate Court, it is clear that the forest produce, in question, did not belong to the State Government, it being issued to the right holders, under the Timber Distribution Scheme. Therefore, the Authorised Officer did not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The order is thus without …3… jurisdiction and nonest and is accordingly quashed. The petition stands disposed of. 8. A request has been made by the counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle may be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner. The quashing of the order of the Authorised Officer does not mean that the vehicle is to be straightway released to the petitioner. He should approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate by making appropriate application for the release of the vehicle. March 7, 2008(ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J