(^) HIGH GOURT OF GHHATTISGARN: BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3348 of 2007 Petitioner Ashok Kumar Sahu S/o Jaganna#i Sahu, aged about 31 yeats, R/o Pendra, Tahsil-Pendra Road, Distrtet Bilaspur C.G. Versus Respondent Slate of C.G., (Forest Departmerrt) Through the CoUector Bilaspur, C.G. (Writ Petition under Article 227 <rf the Constihrtien of IncBia) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justtce tetish K. ^nihotrt Presenfc Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel fcr the petifienw. Shri Yashwant Slngh Thakur, Govt. Adv. fer Ae respondent. OIUU.ORDER (Passed on 1^"' June, 2007) Thte petition fil«junder Article 227 <rf the Constitution of India impugns l^ality and validity of the orcter dated 27.12^006- (Annexure P-1) passed by the 8 Additional District and Seatens Judge, (F.T.C.), Bilaspur In Criminal Revisien No.144 of2£X)5wherefey the revision was rejected. (2) The undisputed faets in nutrfietlare that the motor cycta Hero Honda CD Dawn bearing regi^ration No. eG-IO-BA-7068 was involved in theft of forest wood committed in the intervening night of 24-07-2004/25-07-2004. The said vehiete was seized by the ^ing squad ofthe Forest Department andfte case wasregi^Brad undBTtfte provisions of Uie Forest Act. The Dhrisional Forest Officer, Pendra Road, in case No.816 of 2004 directod connscatton efthe sakl vehicte byorderdated 15.02.2005 (Annexure P-4). 2 (3) Being aggrieved, flw petitioner preferred an appeal before the Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur. The Conservstor of Forest, Bilaspur dlsmissed the appeal by order dated 29.07^003 (Annexure P-5). (4) Bdng aggrieved, criminal revision was filed before the 8th Addittonal District and Sessions Judge, Bitespur ^tef haying considered all the facts of ttie case and the orders passed by the Gourt below, dismissed the revision by the impugtwd ordsr dated 27.12.2006. (5) Leamed counsel, for the first thne, took up the ptea that after the compromise dated 25.07.2004 theForest aithorittes ought not to haveproceeded against the petttloner fer conftscation of;ttie said vehicle. The petitioner had not taken this plea before any authoray w before tte leamed Judge wherein the revlsien was pending for conskteration and as such, this plea eannot be permitted to be ralsed at this stage. In a petition filed under ArUcle227 <rf the ConstituUon, the petitioner has not estaWished as to whatherany compromise.any decision with regard to conflscation of 9w said vehicte ww taken or not. The impugned judgment and order Is just and proper and does not warrantany interferenee bythis Court. (6) It is well setBed principte of lawr.that under Artiele 227 of the Constibitian of India, this Geurt has jurisdicfon afjudicial reviaw of the order passed by the Court below, in the event, thare is rranifest \ ^ Kanna and apparent error on ttie toce of the proceedinga based on ttie clear ignorance or uttor disregard to the provisions <rf Isw er there is grave failure of jusUce or grave injustice has occaslonad Ihercby. Further, this Court can also entertain the petiUon in itssupervisory jurisrt'ctlon if there Is perveisity, irregulartty or illegality in the proce^ of dedsion, not in the decision itself. ^ ' (7) As a resutt and for ttie reasons afoiestated, this petition isdismi^ed. Sd/- SatishK.AgnUtotri Judge f^ \