EA é HIGH COURT OF CHHA ILASP Writ Petition No.381 of 1994 PETITIONER: State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh), through S.D.O., Forest, North Narayanpur Sub Division, Distt. Bastar. Versus RESPONDENTS: Naveen Kumar Dua, S/o Virendra Kumar Dua. 2. Virendra Kumar Dua, S/o Sriram Dua, Both R/o Kondagaon, Tahsil Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar. 3. Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker, Distt. Bastar, M.P. (now C.G.) {Petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/petitioner. None present for respondents No.1 & 2. No representation is made. Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORDER (27-9-201 1) 1. By this petition, the State/petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 23-8-93 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker in Criminal Revision No.2/92. 2. i have heard learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State/petitioner, perused the order impugned and copies of orders passed by the authorized authority/appellate authority. 3. As per the order impugned, respondents No.1 & 2 entered into compromise with the competent authority and have paid compensation of Rs.500/— but even after payment of compensation, forest authorities have confiscated the truck which was challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge by respondents No.1 & 2. 4. As per Section 19 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (for short ‘the Act’), if compensation is paid, the authorized officers are required to drop further proceeding relating to the property other than the forest produce. As per sub-section (3) of Section .19 of the Act, compensation was below Rs.500/—. ln these circumstances, while confiscating the truck, the authorized authority and the appellate authority have committed r illegality. T BUR 5. Section 19 of the Act reads thus, “19. Composition of offences—(1) The State Government may, by notification, empower a forest Officeh— (a) to accept from any person against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed an offence punishable under this Act, a sum of money by way of compensation for the offence which such person is suspected to have committed; and (b) When any property other than a specified forest produce has been seized as Iiabie 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 persons shall be discharged, the property, other than the specified forest produce if any, seized shall be released, and no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property. (3) A Forest Officer shall not be empowered under this section unless he is a Forest Officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Divisional Forest Officer, and the sum of money accepted as compensation under clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall in no case exceed the sum of one thousand rupees." 6. While correcting the order passed by the appellate authority, the Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality requiring interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. l v sala 119., Shari“ judge Soma ,lli‘ ”xvii; ., v. r