IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 146 of 2007. Judgement reserved on: 25.2.2008 Date of decision: 26.2.2008. Vinod Kumar …..….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. V.S.Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 2.8.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4-S/1 of 2007, dismissing the application of the petitioner, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order, dated 3.7.2006, of Authorised Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Solan. 2. The brief facts of the case are that truck bearing registration No. HP-06A-0216 met with an accident near Pratha and was found loaded with Deodar timber, 61 planks and 110 Karis and Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… therefore, the truck was impounded by the police. It was found that truck was owned by Vinod Kumar petitioner. The supporting documents for carrying the timber in the truck legally were not produced and accordingly confiscation of the truck and the timber, proceedings were initiated. Notice was given to petitioner to show cause why the vehicle should not be confiscated since a forest offence has been apparently committed for carrying the timber illegally. 3. The petitioner contested the proceedings and took the stand that offence was not committed with his knowledge. The Authorised Officer ultimately passed the order of confiscation under Sections 52-A, 52-B of the Indian Forest Act on 3.7.2006 in FIR No. 83/105 dated 5.9.2005 registered at Police Station Kandaghat. This order was assailed by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan. The appeal was barred by time, therefore, an application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application for condonation of delay on 2.8.2007, hence this revision. 4. I have heard Mr. V.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent and gone through the record. It has been submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is 6 months and 14 days. The petitioner could not file the appeal in time as he was not aware of the confiscation order dated 3.7.2006. The petitioner came to know the order dated 3.7.2006 on 12.2.2007 from the Clerk/ Reader of the concerned court. …3… The counsel representing the petitioner before the Authorised Officer told the petitioner that he would inform the petitioner whenever his presence would be required. The petitioner came to Solan on 12.2.2007 and tried to contact his counsel to know about the progress of the case but he could not contact his counsel due to vacation in the court. Thereafter the petitioner visited the concerned court and came to know the confiscation order on 12.2.2007. The petitioner applied for copy of the confiscation order, which was supplied to him on 17.2.2007, the appeal and the application for condonation of delay were prepared on 20.2.2007 and filed in the court of learned Sessions Judge on 20.2.2007. 5. The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner has been contested by the respondent. The evidence was led by the parties on the condonation of the delay application and ultimately the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application. 6. There is no denial of the fact that petitioner was represented by a counsel before the Authorised Officer and power of attorney of the petitioner in favour of the counsel before the Authorised Officer is at page 60 of the file. The presence of the counsel of the petitioner is recorded before the Authorised Officer on 20.2.2006. It appears after 20.2.2006 counsel representing the petitioner before the Authorised Officer did not appear before the Authorised Officer and ultimately the Authorised Officer passed the confiscation order on 3.7.2006. 7. In the statement before the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner has stated that he had engaged Mr. Ranjish Lal, Advocate …4… and even filed reply through the Advocate. RW 1 Sanjiv Kumar, Range Officer in his statement has stated that petitioner and his counsel did not appear before the Authorised Officer after 20.2.2006. The confiscation proceedings of the truck were started against the petitioner. He has engaged an Advocate. It has come on record that after putting one appearance that Advocate did not appear before the Authorised Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that his counsel had told him that in case of necessity, he would inform the petitioner and for that reason the petitioner did not appear before the Authorised Officer since he was not asked by his Advocate to appear before the Authorised Officer. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that when for a quite long time petitioner did not receive any communication from his counsel, he of his own on 12.2.2007 went to Solan and tried to contact his Advocate and when he failed to contact his Advocate, the petitioner from the office of Authorised Officer came to know the decision of the confiscation of the truck on 12.2.2007. He took immediate steps for filing the appeal which was filed on 20.2.2007. From the material on record, it can be safely inferred that the petitioner was depending on his advocate for pursuing the case before the Authorised Officer. He remained under the impression that his Advocate would inform him as and when his presence would be required before the Authorised Officer. The Advocate did not inform him, rather the case was decided in absence of the Advocate by the Authorised Officer. The petitioner was not to gain anything for making his appeal time barred. Therefore petitioner was not negligent in pursuing the case. The confiscation of the truck is involved. The …5… learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the material on record. The petitioner has made out a case for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Even otherwise, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent in case delay in filing the appeal is condoned. In these circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 8. The result of the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed, order dated 2.8.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan is set-aside. . The delay in filing the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan against the order dated 3.7.2006 of the Authorised Officer, Solan in case FIR No. 83/105 dated 5.9.2005 registered at Police Station, Kandaghat is condoned. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to register the appeal and decide the same on merits expeditiously. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan on 11.3.2008. February 26, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.