HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARK AT ESLAS°UR (SS: Hon'bis Mr. T.P.ShiARsViA, J.) WTif Petltion SSio.SOS of 2003 Sukhvlnder Singh The State of Chhattisgarh and oihes POST FOR PRONOUNCE'^ENT OF THE ORDER ON 30/11/2011 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge . i3lS ,-l:114i. 11 •J:!'"; '^RI^^-^t '« ^s F®TiTion®r HI&H COUR7 OF CHHATTIS&ARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petltion No. 509 of 2003 Sukhvinder Singh, aged about 25 y'ears, sori of Si!"i 6ur'fflei Sirigh, bnver and Trsyisporter, Res]ds"t of Ga'ursnaqar, Ward No.12 fta.jriOindqaori, &lstt.Rajnsnd9uon (Chhsttisgiar'h). &^— KesoonoenTs Versus 1. Tne State of Chhsttisgarh, through : Sscretsif'y, Fo'^sst D&po.^t^^rst. D.K.S. ,*Aci,"tra!ay, Raipu" ICG). 2. Ttie Appeiiate Aulnority Cum- Coriser'y^tc'r' of ^Qr&st, t5ur^ Ci^cle, &ii"g Dsstt.Durg (C6) /^^^; S. sua-OiviSionci urrscer, •or'est (Senerai), Au-t-horis&d Authorlty, Rajnandgaon, District Rcjn&idaaon (C6) fvVrit Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) AAr.P.K.C.Tiwar'i, Senior Advocate wi-STi Mi'.Shashi Bhushdn, Advocate for ths petitioner. iVir.Sushii bubey, ©overnmentAdvocate for the respondents/Stute. (SB; Hon-'bie AAr. T.P. 5h a.J.) ORDE (Passed on 30th Novembe". 2011) 1. By •riiis petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of Indio -ine petitioner has chaiienged the iegaiity- ond propriet/ of l+'ie order dated 10.1.2003 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, burg, in Criminai Revision No.564/2002. reversini; l+ie ofder dated 2.11.2002 pcssed by tiie Appeliate Autt-iority and Conserv'utor of Forest, &urg, whereby •ifte Appeiicte Authori'ty and Conservator of ForesT has modified the order duted 16.4.2002 passed by Th& Aultior'ized AulTiority and Sub &ivi3ionul /'*"!-. "^. Z4 iiisii'n; -^- Officer, Reynandgaon, whereby the Authoi'ized Authority and Sub Divisionai Officer has passed the or-aer of confiscation of vehicie No.M.P. 23-D/4410. By iTiodifying the order the AppelSate Authority and Conservator of Forest has in-iposerf compensation of Rs.2000/- eaid after poryment of such compensation (Pratiknr-) he has directed for reiease tiie vehicle. By reversing the order passed by the Appelicte Au-thorify tlie First Additiona! Ssssions Jud^s^ DuF^ hss r^stor^ci the order of CvnflscGtion passsd by 'Hi© Authorized AuittOi-ity. 2. J hays heGrd learrieid counsei for Itte partiss^ psrussd the ordBr impu^ned, ordsrs of ths authorizsd CfcUthorlty oTsd uppsliute ^uthority Gn<i copiss vf oitiier docuwents fil&ci on beh^if uf the petitionsr. 3. i.s.o^nsd couFsssl for ths pstitioner vshetTisntly Qrqusd thst it^portQnt ^uestioii of law inyoiye in ^ie prcsent CGSS for considsr^xtion is wheth^r in case of timber or forest produce not beioriging to the &overnir>ent any forest offence is committed then whether without conviction of the offender, vehicie, toois, boats, ropes, chuins and other articles cari be corifiscdtsd. L^amed couri^l furthsr Gr^ued that Iri or'der to pass the, ord^r of confiscatiori reiating to timber and forest produce not beioriging to 1+ie ^sCXTs £?ov'^rl^n^s;n't conViCTEOn o't Tj'is oTT^n^^^* 's sins Qusi non in Ctccor^dncs with Section 55 of me Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short 'the Act, 1927). LearTEC.d couns®!aiso Gr^ued thut in the pr^serit CGS€,ths; offsndsr hi23 be^n uC^u'TI^CS. fcV'SH O'TriSrWiSS TnS ^>TO.T£ iTidS not prouijceCi <^iy ^ocumsnT To show iriat offender has been convicted, therefore, confiscation of such jorssT procsuCtt wess HOT E£^uEiy possi&se Tor siijThorizscE c&iTS'ioriiy in accordance with Section 55 of the Act, 1927. 4. On the other hand, iearned &ov'ernment Advocate for Wte State/respondent? OppOSSd lh€ pStEtiOH u?ld Qr^USd thGt the pres&ut petitioner was tTu?>?3pG?"T'H^ ii!& TOFSST prOuUCS E?y his v*£t'isct£'iw'iit'iouT ^ny TrQusiT puss or ; v'uiid p'snriit, in "Hie^ circunTiSt^utcss vehicle 'wG.s liubj^ for confiscutio^ / undsr Ssction 52 of thc; Act, 1927' eKid by confiscatin^ llie v'shicle ond / ,j>"-ca«li,. ';»li2t»"^ 2 affirming the order of confiscation the cppeiiate auwiorit/ and revisionai uUthoriTy h<sv£ not comiTiittsd oiiy iilegaiit^ warr^ntiri^ iriterfsr&nce in exercise of siipervisory jurisdiction under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India. ^ 5. Spsciul prGvision r^lutin^ to confiscGtion of vehide, toois, bosts, ropes, chains and other crticies hoiS been mcde in Seetion 52 of -S+ie Act, 1927 by M.P. Amendment Act No.25 of 1983. Section 55 of t+ie Act, 1927 has also tSiEGFt GiT1£H(3®dWniCh FiSCiidS u3 UFiuSF"" lo5. Forsst produce, tools, etc., whsr! iiabls tG confiscstiori." (1) All timber or forest producc; vif'hich In sither CGSS, \s not th£propsrty of the SovsmiTisnt snd in p£3p%ct of which a forest offe.nce has bssn CGi^mitted, uT^d ulE tOoJS, bOGtS, VshidsS, rop®s,chaii'i3 OF oriy Glti£r GFtiCSS^ in ©GCh CG3S USSd ini coiTifnitTiHui ^iy ToresT"- offence, shuli subject to provisions of sections 52, 52-A, 52-B flu'ad o2-C, be liobl^ to cofifisccttiori up©nconvictloR o'f ths offsndsr for Suich forest-offencs. (2) Such confiscutiori rr^ay bs in dddition to Gny other punishment prescribed for such offence.'"" 6. As psr Section 52 of th& Act^ 1927^ gsnsrd procedur-s hus bsen prss^ribsd for coiifiscution of vshide, toois, boats, utid other ^rticles ussd in CGITiiT^iSSlGH Ot 'fOFSSt offsHCS^ but SpSCiGl pFOVISiOn rsiOttiH^ ^ COHlfiSCStion of v'shicls cnd other articlss ussd In co^ETtlssion of for^st offencs. ip which « timber or forest produce are not property of the State &overriment has !3£^?i mciu£in ^scTion 33 d T!^£^Ci, X;?c-/. '. Section 55 of the Act, i927 is exception To gerieroi ruie cind in accordance •••••ifh Section 55 or the Act, 1927, if timber or rorest produce is nst the property of the &overnnient eand forest offence has been corrimittea. then - .^£hici& uud othsr (^rtictes ET'iGy be corifiscated orily Lipors conv'iction of tlie vffsnder for- such forsst offeric^. L£. In Cu3£of tin"ibsr or forest producs ss '^. 'K^ ! ^^ft' ]L-% il*»i!s!l -4-- not the ps-operty of the fiovernment, then for confiscation of vehiele ond other articies conviction of offender for coffimissiori of foresT offence is sins qua non. 3. ZFi ordsr to corifisccttffl such vehicis ond othfir GrticiBS ths prGsecution or the Stute is required to prove that offender has been convicted, thersufter yshscls or urticiss moy bs confiscutsd by ths uuthorized authority. In the present case, State authorities huy'e not fiied einy iilfiSHT t0 OFOVS TttS TOCT ThG't Tri£ OTTSHder hu3 b££HCOriV'iCaSCf TOF con^ii^issiofi OT sucn TOFSST OTTKHC£. 9. Tn 'ti^e ubsen^ of o^iy syidencs of conviction of 'tiic offender, order of confiSCution of vshide snd oltisr urticiss r-elutin^ to tiiTiber or for^st produce not theproperty- of the 6overnn'ient was not iegoiity possibie in tern-.s of Section 55 of the Act, 1927. The Appeiiate Autttorily has taken Just ui'iu SibsrciS vlsw snd pG3ssd tf'aS ord&p which r-cuds QS undEr^-" ''^S1 ^T?^T^' l4cp'<yi <p-Hicp 498/3 1^1riT'^ 15.1.2002 Tt ^s^f q?^i ^B ^CTW "^.Tft. 23 ^t/4410 ^t wro^'",'!S srf^s3 PRPT 2001 W E?RT 3 qsl <:t<ro!'y'ri ^^ c^ q?ROT WT^ 20QO/— .^t ?^iT» TITa) ^T yRiwi q'i^c1'^ ^ \iu<!a 'gW f^2?T '3THT t i ^-T STRra' Tf 15P<f ri-i1"uj ^|CT ^T^ 110 - ' = 6.673 ^r.1ft. W V,.S. <i-uj^ ^jf^sJI ^ pjjg(f yi4tji^S ^ 3i^%'q- p|q<in^li<{ CBl<Iql^i ^^ SltqRifl iw uiiai & i lO.Whiie reversing ttie order passed by •ir.e Appellute Authoriiy the revisionci GvUrt siGS COETiH^ltsGCl iitSQiSiitV. 11. Corise.quentiy, the 'wTit petitlon de^ryes to be Gllo'wsd i^id it i3 h^rsby aiiowed. Order dated 10.1.2003 passed by the Hrst Additionai Sessions Judge, burg, in Crirriinai Reyision No.564/2002 is hereby qunshed and -Hie order dated 2.11.2002 passed by the Appeiiute Aultiority ond Conservator of Forest, &urg is hepeby restored. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge TU{/