Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Verma v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Environment and Forest and Ors.

Jharkhand HC19 Jun 2023W.P.(Cr.)/43/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition seeking quashing of confiscation orders under the Indian Forest Act. The court found the petitioner failed to prove the wood was cut from private land or produced a mandatory transit permit, distinguishing a cited precedent. The challenge was rejected due to violation of Section 41 and 42.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing the order dated 18.02.2013 and order dated 25.10.2013 is dismissed.

Ashok Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand through the… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(Cr.) No. 43 of 2014

Ashok Kumar Verma

….. .... …Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Deptt. Of Environment & Forest, Govt. of Jharkhand

¶8

Deputy Commissioner, Koderma

¶9

Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma

¶10

………….. Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner:- Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate

¶14

09/ Dated:-19.06.2023

¶15

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.02.2013 passed in Confiscation Case No. 13 of 2011 and also for quashing of order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma in Confiscation Appeal No. 24 of 2013.

¶16

On the written report of one Shiv Kumar Singh, Forester, Bariyardih Forest Beat, the case was lodged alleging therein that on 02.10.2011 at about 7.00 p.m. a tractor was found carrying 21 piece of Sisam Wood block over the tractor bearing registration JH-11F - 5584 with Trailer No. 5585, by that time one Ram Pravesh Verma was driving the aforesaid tractor. It is further case of the prosecution that the petitioner Ashok Kumar Verma happens to be owner of the aforesaid tractor. So far the aforesaid 21 blocks of Sisham wood was being brought by one Jagdish Verma from the raiyati land of Sri Ramesh Prasad Ram, son of Sobhi Ram of village P.O. & P.S. - Markachho, the tree was cut away from raiyati land of aforesaid Ramesh Prasad Ram from lands of Khata No. 1099, Plot No. 5054 and a certificate issued by the Mukhiya of Markachho

¶17

Gram Panchayat was also produced. They required transit permit as enumerated under section 41 of Indian Forest Act which was not

¶18

¶19

produced by the driver of the tractor, therefore, they have i.e. driver and owner of the aforesaid tractor have entailed a liability to be punishable under section 42 of the Indian Forest Act. On the basis of above information G. Case No. 476/11 was lodged under section 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act and the said tractor along with 21 blocks of Sisam wood loaded on the tractor were seized after preparation of a seizure list.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was owner of tractor in question and he was having no knowledge of the woods logs which were being carried out in that vehicle and to buttress his argument he relied in the case of “Muk Teshwar Mahto Vs. Ram Autar Sharma” 2006 SCC Online Jhar 894 . On these grounds, he submits that the aforesaid orders may be quashed.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is having alternative remedy by way of filing the revision petition before the revisional authority.

¶22

The court has gone through the order dated 25.10.2013 and finds that the learned Deputy Commissioner has found that the petitioner has not produced documentary evidence to prove that the wood logs have been cut from the private land. The transit permit was also not produced of any timber and the petitioner has failed to prove title of the wood and also failed to prove that wood logs were not brought from the Forest Land. The said act has been done in violation of Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

¶23

The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been found that in that case maple trees were

¶24

¶25

removed from raiyati land and in the case in hand the petitioner is not able to prove the same and that is why the said case is not helping the petitioner accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶26

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶27

Satyarthi/-

Ashok Kumar Verma v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Environment and Forest and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Verma v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Environment and Forest and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramdayal Ray Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Arun Kumar Vs Water Resources Department

Dhullu Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Amit Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Ganesh Kumar Khetan and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.