HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.2310 of 2006 APPLICANT: Roop Chand Khatik, S/o Mangal Khatik, aged about 48 years, R/o Budhiyari Para, Dongargarh Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through NON-APPLICANT: Authorized Officer and Divisional Forest Officer (Social Forestry) Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) {Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} \,// Present: MkraAnup Majumdar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Akhil Mishra, Deputy Govt. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Gupta, 3 Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. ; . Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (Passed on 4‘“ December, 2009) 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order confirming the connscatiQh-eri proceeding of the vehicle, passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg in A Criminal Revision No.180/2005 vide order dated 25—4-2006. 2. Quashment is prayed on the ground that without any provision for confiscation of the vehicle under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short ‘the Act, 1927’) or the Chhattisgarh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) r Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short ‘the Act, 1964’), the forest authorities have confiscated the vehicle No.CG—O8IZB-O106 and thereby committed illegality. 3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner, who is owner of vehicle No.CG-08/ZB-0106, was transporting 50 bags of Tendu leaves from Maharashtra to Dongargarh. Search was a made by the forest officers and Tendu leaves & vehicle were seized. \_ Confiscation proceeding was initiated under the Act, 1964 and after providing opportunity of hearing, confiscation order was passed by the authorized officer. The order of confiscationrwas challenged before the appellate forum vide Criminai Appeal No.652/18 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 14-6-2005. The appellate order was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No.180/2005 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 25-4— 2006. x v 4. i have heard learned counsei for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of the Courts below. 5. Learneg counsel‘for the petitioner vehementiy argued that the order of confiscation has been passed under Section 14 (6) of the Act, 196. Th petitioner has not violated any provisions of the Act, 1964, he has imported Tendu leaves from outside the State and uc import is not the sh offence punishabie under the provisions of the Act, 1964. Learv ned-” counsel further argued that as held by the Apex Court in the cases f o Mls. Vrajlal Manilal and Co. and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (AIR 1970 SC 129) and The State of Madhya Pradesh and rothers v. Mls. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. and another (AIR 1972 SC 971), the Act, 1964 does not impose any express embargo n o import of tendu leaves from outside the State or restrict their movement once they are brought within the State, therefore, the confiscation is illegal and not maintainabie. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the petition. 7. It reveals from the order of the authorized officer dated 2-9-2004 that the property has been contiscated under Section 14 (6) of the Act, 1964, same was impugned in appeal before the appellate Court and the 4 e‘ appellate Coun has arriVed at a finding that the petitioner herein has violated the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Transit’(Forest Produce) Rules, 2001 (for short ‘the Rules,’2001’) and has confirmed the order of contiscation. The revisional Court has also affirmed the order of the appellate Court after holding that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Rules, 2001. Record further reveals that originally the confiscation order has been passed under Section 14 (6) of the Act, 1964, subsequently it was affirmed by the appellate Court and the revisional Court on the ground that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Rules, 2001. . The Chhattisgarh.,Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 is a i special legislation controlling the movement of tendu leaves within the _ State in addition to the provisions contained in the Act, 1927. Section 20 of the Act, 1964 provides that the matters relating to the tendu leaves not provided for in this Act and provided for in the Act, 1927 shall, be, governed by the provisions of that Act. Section 20 of the Act, 1964 reads as follows: - “20. For other matters the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 shall apply.—The matters relating to the tendu leaves not provided for in this Act and provided for in the Indian F’orest Act, 1927 (No.16 of 1927) shall, be governed by the provisions of that Act." . The Rules, 2001 have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 76 read with Sections 41 and 42 of the Act, 1927. Violation of the Rules, 2001 is punishable under Rule 20 of the Rules, 2001 and in such cases, the confrscation proceeding may be initiated under the Act, 1927. Therefore, the order impugned, the order of the appellate Court and the order of the authorized officer are not sustainable under the law. 4 10.The petition is allowed. Order impugned, order of the appellate Court and order of the authorized officer are hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the authorized officer and the authorized officer authorized under the Act, 1927 for confiscation of the article shall after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties pass order afresh, in accordance with law. /J, Sd/- T.P. SHARMA Judge, m?r .