IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5113 of 2001 VIJAY KUMAR KESHRI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 23/1/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. A Search and seizure of a truck loaded with green timber, Paisar, Asam Sidha Bel, salaia and wooden Taunta etc. was made on 9.3.1998 in front of Dobhi Thana Gaya by Sub. Inspector Sri Ram Sagar Singh, Dobhi Thana, Gaya. The said search and seizure ultimately led to a confiscation proceeding being Confiscation Case No. 32 of 1998 and the authorized Officer of Gaya Forest Division by order dated 28.8.1998 had passed an order for confiscation of the truck in terms of section 52(3) of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989. Such order was also made subject matter of an appeal and the appellate authority by his order dated 14.2.1999 had affirmed the aforementioned confiscation order passed by the original authority. The petitioner thereafter had filed a revision which too was dismissed on 26.8.2000 under the orders of Secretary 2 of the Forest Department both on the ground of limitation and merits. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the aforementioned all the three impugned orders has confined his submissions only on one aspect that the seizure in question having been by an Assistant Sub. Inspector of Police, was in violation of the provisions made under section 52D of the Indian Forest Act, as amended by Bihar Amendment which mandates such seizure only by an officer in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police and above. Counsel for the State, however, by referring to the confiscation order passed by the original authority points out that there is a specific finding of fact that such seizure was made by Sub. Inspector of Police. In reply, counsel for the petitioner had tried to wriggle out of the situation by referring to a copy of the First Information Report suggesting that such seizure infact was actually made by an Assistant Sub. Inspector of police. This Court, having given anxious 3 consideration to the aforementioned submission, is of the view that when three forums were available to the petitioner and in fact the petitioner had also filed review as is noticed in the order passed by the Commissioner while disposing of the revision application, this question of fact as with regard to seizure being made by an Assistant Sub. Inspector of Police or a Sub. Inspector of Police had to be raised before the authorities under the Act. That having been not done, this Court would not now permit the petitioner to raise this question of fact for the first time in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar