IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.759 of 2008 TAPAS KUMAR DAS VS STATE & ORS ----------- 7 05.12.2008. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for setting aside order dted 27.6.2008, passed by the Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment, Govt of Bihar, Patna in Revision case cum Forest case (C) No. 19 of 2007 affirming order dated 1.3.2007 of the Appellant Court as well as the original court, namely, Authorized officer cum Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas Forest Division,Sasaram passed in Confiscation Case No. 5 of 2005. Brief facts giving rise to the case are as follows:- Acting on a tip off, the Officer in charge of Sasaram Mufassil P.S. along with Forest officials stopped a white TATA sumo having registration number WB 24 C 3406 with black glasses coming from the west. On search 925 live turtles were seized from the middle and rear part of the vehicle backed in nine large sized jute bags under the provisions of section 50 (1) (C) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Police arrested Sudhir Mandal, the driver of the vehicle, Sanjeev Vishwas and Vishwajeet Mitra. Mufassil Thana case no. 24 of 2005 (AGR Case No. 84 of 2005) was registered in the court of the CJM. On interrogation of the arrested persons, it was disclosed that the Turtle were transported from Jaunpur, UP to Karasath (WB) at behest of the petitioner. It is relevant to mention here that all the turtles seized from the vehicle were freed in Indrapuri dam reservoir on Sone river on 25.1.2005. As the offence related to the seizure of turtle, a wild animal as specified in section 2 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, confiscation proceedings were initiated by the Authorized officer cum Divisional Forest - 2 - Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Sasaram against the seized properties under section 52 of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act , 1989. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that it cannot be conclusively proved that the petitioner had prior knowledge or given his consent for transporting the aforesaid turtles from Uttar Pradesh to West Bengal. The petitioner submits that in fact the vehicle was hired for marriage purpose and the driver in collusion with others, may have used the same for carrying the turtle illegally, for which he cannot be held legally liable. Learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit dated 3.12.2008 stating therein that the police and forest officials intercepted the vehicle on secret information and seized turtle being illegally transported. It has been submitted that it would be evident from statement of apprehended accused that petitioner is guilty. This court is not impressed with the submission of the petitioner as the arrested inmates of the vehicle have clearly confessed in their interrogation that the alleged illegal transportation of turtles was being done at his behest, who also is the owner of the vehicle in question. In case goods are confiscated, the same is put to auction sale to realize its price as keeping it in custody would not only increase the establishment expenses but day by day the value of goods in question will also depreciate. The legislature by engrafting section 68 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 has also provided an opportunity to persons committing offence other than one specified in sections 62 and 63 to compound such offences by payment of its due value. Section 68 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 reads as follows:--- 68. Power to compound offences:- (1) The (State Government) may, by notification in the Official Gazette, empower a Forest Officer- - 3 - (a) to accept from any person against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed any forest-offence, other than an offence specified in section 62 or section 63, a sum of money by way of compensation for the offence which such person is suspected to have committed, and (b) When any property has been seized as liable to confiscation, to release the same on payment of the value thereof as estimated by such officer.” (2) On the payment of such sum of money, or such value, or both, as the case may be, to such officer, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged, the property, if any, seized shall be released, and no further proceedings shall be taken against such persons or property. (3 ) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Thus section 68 of the Act provides an opportunity to a person against whom there is reasonable suspicion that he has committed forest offence to compound such offence by payment of value of the goods confiscated. The Apex court in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai and another Vs the State of Gujrat, reported in Air 2003SC 638 has observed that whatever be the situation it is of no use to keep such vehicle at police station for long period as it becomes junked day by day. Furthermore, the Apex court in case of Karnataka Vs K.Krishnan, reported in 2000(7) SCC page 80 observed as follows:- “ We are of the considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscating proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reason a Court is inclined to release the vehicles during such pendency furnishing a Bank guarantee should be the minimum condition.” In the instant case, the Court finds that the confiscatory proceedings have come to an end. The vehicle in question is likely to be put on auction sale. Section 68 of the Indian Forest Act even provides for compounding of offence, if the owner is willing to pay the value of the property seized. As such, this Court is of - 4 - the view that if petitioner is willing to pay value of seized vehicle in cash or by bank draft, the same would be released in his favour after due verification of papers. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J)