IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1043 (M/S) of 2008 Jabar Singh Rawat …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Sharad Sharma, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Aniruddh Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.C. Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents. The present writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the order passed by the authority seizing the vehicle of the petitioner. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Barkot, apprehended a vehicle loaded with forest produce. He intimated the forest officials who rushed to the spot. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, consequently, left the place. A First Information Report was lodged on 30th October, 2007 by the forest officials alleging illegal removal of forest produce, such as, wood of Rhododendron and Oak which was loaded in the truck. The First Information Report indicates that the locals forcibly took away the truck along with the produce. It may be noted here that the First Information Report does not name the driver or the owner of the truck nor is the number of the truck recorded. After 28 days, on 28th November, 2007, the petitioner’s vehicle was seized and a seizure memo was prepared by the forest officials. The forest officials alleged that this was the vehicle used in the removal of the forest produce. On the basis of the seizure memo and the report as well as the First Information Report, two separate cases were launched 2 under Section 26(1)(e) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, in which the petitioner and others were named and, steps were taken under Section 52-A of the said Act for seizure of the vehicle which was used in the commission of a forest offence. The competent authority, i.e., the forest officer by an order dated 8.5.2008 seized the vehicle and rejected the application of the petitioner for release. By the said order, the forest officer confiscated the vehicle. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 52-B of the Act which was rejected and thereafter, the present writ petition was filed. To cut short the matter as to whether the forest officer was justified in seizing and confiscating the vehicle under Section 52-A of the Act and whether the appellate order was justified or not, the Court finds that against the same incident a First Information Report was lodged under Section 26(1)(e) read with Sections 41, 42, 52 and 79 I.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate, in the judgment dated 5th April, 2011, found that the forest officials were unable to prove the offence committed by the petitioner and accordingly, held that no case was made out against the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that there is no justification for the respondents to confiscate the vehicle in question. The criminal court has found the petitioner to be innocent in the commission of the offence. A vehicle can be seized and confiscated under Section 52-A of the Act “where a forest offence is believed to have been committed”. Since a criminal court has found that no forest offence has been committed by the petitioner, 3 on this short ground, the Court is of the opinion that the confiscation order cannot be sustained. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned orders of seizure and confiscation as well as the appellate order are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The vehicle shall be released forthwith by the respondents upon presentation of a certified copy of this order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 20-08-2011 Salim/