IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 2356 of 2010 1. MD. NASHIM KHAN @ NASHIMUDDIN KHAN S/O MD. SULEMAN KHAN R/O VILLAGE & P.O.- NAWA BAZAR, P.S.- BISHRAMPUR, DISTT.- PALAMU (JHARKHAND) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY null FOREST & ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOREST & ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KAIMUR AT BHABHUA 4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER BHABHUA ----------- 2 11.05.2010 The petitioner had purchased a public carrier truck being BR 2F 9455 in the year, 2006 and got it duly transferred in his name. The truck in question is a Tata diesel vehicle which was manufactured in 1995. The said truck was intercepted carrying certain bags of kendu leaves. Alleging contravention of the provisions of the Forest Act, the truck, with the kendu leaves, were seized. A criminal prosecution was launched wherein, till date, petitioner is not an accused. A confiscation proceeding under the Forest Act was also initiated but petitioner, whose commercial vehicle it was, considered it prudent to compromise the matter instead of fighting a long drawn battle. As per the compromise, petitioner agreed to pay the value of the truck, as assessed. Basically, the writ application is in respect of value, as assessed. The challenge is that the value, as assessed, is fundamentally wrong and has no basis. It is virtually an assessment to deny the effective release. From the facts noted above, it would be noted that this is a truck which is now over 15 years old. It is being valued at Rs 5 lacs. That simply cannot be the value. The value of trucks and such automotives is on basis of depreciated value. There are no appreciations 2 in cases of motor vehicle. That being so, the value of the truck can easily be determined with respect to the price at which it was purchased in 1995 and applying the scheduled rate of depreciation, the price is to be worked out. If authorities of the Forest Department do not know these figures then any insurance surveyor would provide all these informations because they value vehicles everyday. No rational has been shown for valuing at Rs 5 lacs. Thus, the order determining the value is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, as indicated above. That exercise must be completed by the respondents within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Divisional Forest Officer, Kaimur at Bhabhua. The second grievance of the petitioner is that he has been imposed a fine in terms of Section 68 (1) (a) of the Forest Act as if it is a fine for compounding prosecution. Petitioner points out that he was never made an accused neither he is an accused in any criminal case and that being so, no such demand can be made as no compounding is at all necessary. While considering the valuation, the respondents would also examine the records and if they find that the petitioner has not been made an accused then the compounding fee, as being charged in terms of Section 68 aforesaid, would not be liable to be paid. All this, as noted above, should be done at the earliest not later than one month. The writ petition, thus, stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)