1 CR.WP NO.19/2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 19. WP/19/2011 VASUDEV NARAYANSING GIRASE [Criminal] V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. P.B.Patil, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.P.P.More, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:June 17th, 2011 1. Heard extensively. 2. The petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to release the Tractor No.MH-18-E-9619 and Trolley No.MH-18- E-9620 seized in Crime No.3/2007 and confiscated by the orders of the learned Chief Conservator of Forests, Dhule, in Vigilance Case No.66/705/08-09 by order dt.16.9.2008 and confirmed by the Authorized Officer in its appeal; again confirmed in revision preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge by order dt.20.11.2010. 3. Mr.Patil, learned Counsel, submits that the action of seizure and confiscation is illegal, without any 2 CR.WP NO.19/2011 iota of document and in breach of the legal position and, particularly Section 52 and Section 61-A of the Indian Forests Act, 1927. Mr Patil submits, the Tractor was taken charge after two months of the event, without there being anything in it, when it was parked infront of the house of the applicant. The notice issued on 9.4.2008 of taking action was virtually after six months of the event. Reply, in detail, was filed, informing the authorities that the applicant or his tractor or trolley has nothing to do with transportation of teakwood logs which were found in the saw mill.//The surprise visit/inspection on 25.8.2007 by Deputy Conservator of Forests and Assistant Conservator of Forests at the Saw Mill, named, Shankar Vijay Saw Mill, Shirpur, revealed that without any appropriate stamp or seal of the Government, 33 logs of teakwood were found and were taken charge. Consequent thereupon, FIR was lodged, stated as above. Statement of owner or the person at the Saw Mill was recorded and, thereafter, inquiry was caused. It revealed that the Tractor and Trolley, referred above, carried/transported the wooden logs to the Saw Mill and the wood 3 CR.WP NO.19/2011 was cut to desired size as was instructed by one Mr Jadhav, a Forest Officer in company with his colleague Gujar. 4. Shri Patil has placed reliance to the judgment reported in 1991 (2) Bom.C.R. 167 in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kisan Genu Pawar to assert that the refusal to seize the vehicle, challenged by the State, was not approved by a High Court and same treatment needs to be given in the present case. Without much adverting to the factual aspects of the said matter, it is explicit, in the said case, it was based on the statements of the accused, the vehicle was taken charge and the Court found that such statement could not have been believed or acted upon. 5. On going through the record, I find that at least four persons i.e. Shri Sumanchandra Jayantilal Patel, Raju Govinda Badgujar, r/o Shirpur, Raju Motilal Koli, r/o Shirpur, Helper and Sunil Barku Mali, r/o Shirpur, informed that the seized teakwood was brought to the saw mill by the tractor trolley 4 CR.WP NO.19/2011 owned by the applicant herein Vasudeo. Even if there was delay, it cannot be said that the statements are ill- motivated or the same were made in such a manner to implicate the applicant. The applicant has no adverse relations with either saw mill owner or the employees referred above and they have specifically named the tractor number, having been loaded with and used for transporting the goods to the Saw Mill. Taking these aspects into consideration, at all the stages, the applicant was heard or documents were scanned and at three places the applicant lost. There are limitations in the writ jurisdiction to again scan the material. However, since Mr.Patil read several papers, they are re-visited and on analysis, I find that the order under challenge does not call for any interference. There is no perversity and, prima facie, the vehicle owned by the applicant was involved in transportation. The interpretation to Sections 52 and 61A of the Act carried by Mr.Patil is illogical "as it is together with the goods" that does not mean that at all the time the goods or incriminating article must be in the 5 CR.WP NO.19/2011 vehicle or laden with the vehicle and then only seizure should be effected. In the result, writ petition lacks merit and it is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/19-11crwp