Allowed

Ali Sher v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Oct 2012CRM-M/4005/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order confiscating the petitioner's truck, holding that the owner is entitled to the vehicle's release under Section 451 Cr.P.C. despite statutory provisions allowing seizure and forfeiture upon conviction.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.02.2007 confiscating the petitioner's vehicle was quashed, and the respondents were directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner.

Ali Sher Vs State of Haryana — Environment and Pollution | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM No. M-4005 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Date of Decision: October 08, 2012 CRM No. M-4005 of 2012 (O&M)

Ali Sher

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶10

Present: Mr. S.S. Momi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Addl. A.G., Haryana

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest

¶14

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶15

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing

¶16

order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Special

¶17

Environment Court, Kurukshetra (P-2) by which the vehicle of the petitioner has been confiscated.

¶18

The petitioner is the owner of truck bearing registration No. HYK-6272. This truck was intercepted carrying 205 piece if Khair

¶19

wood from the protected forest areas/ Wild Life Sanctuary and

¶20

damage report No. 49/406 and 54/406 dated 11.06.2000 and 12.06.2000 respectively were prepared. The truck was being driven by

¶21

-2-

¶22

CRM No. M-4005 of 2012 (O&M)

¶23

Paramjit @ Pamma and other person sitting in the truck was Mainudeen. The truck was taken into possession by the Forest Official and both the accused had fled away from the spot. The khair wood recovered from the truck was found to have been cut from Meharniwala, Bansantaur and Bhagwangarh protected forest areas/ Wild Life Sanctuary. After conducting the enquiry by the Forest Guard, it was found that Paramjit @ Pamma and Mainudeen, two other persons namely Safia and Salamu son of Alisher were involved in the cutting and removing of the trees from the protected forests/wild life Sanctuary.

¶24

The trial Court after framing charges and going through the entire evidence, convicted and sentenced Paramjit @ Pamma and Mainudeen to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 33(1) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for brevity ' IF Act') and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4000/- each under Section 54(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for brevity 'the Act').

¶25

On revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, both the convicts were released on probation while upholding their conviction as they were first time offender. While passing order, no order on the confiscation of the truck was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

¶26

-3-

¶27

CRM No. M-4005 of 2012 (O&M)

¶28

Kurukshetra. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. The same was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.07.2009 as the trial Court had already passed order on 28.02.2012 (P-2). By this petition, petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 28.02.2007.

¶29

On notice reply has been filed and a reference has been made to order passed by this Court on 24.03.2003 in Crl. Misc. No. 16711 of 2002 where the petitioner had sought release of the vehicle. During the pendency of the trial, this petition was dismissed on 24.03.2003. The trial has since concluded on 28.02.2007. The right of the petitioner is to be considered in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Crl. Rev. No. 493 of 2000 (R-2). As per the aforesaid judgment, this Court has examined the provisions of the Act and has come to the conclusion that the violation of the Act and IF Act are stringent in nature and the as per Section 39(1)(d) of the Act, the vehicle which has been seized shall be the property of the Government. Section 50(1)(c), allows seizure of vehicle which has been used for committing a Wild Life offence. Under Section 51(2) and (3) the vehicle was liable to be forfeited to the State after conviction had been recorded and this forfeiture was in addition to any other punishment that may be awarded. There is no provision under the Wild Life Act for release of the seized property. Therefore,

¶30

-4-

¶31

CRM No. M-4005 of 2012 (O&M)

¶32

the truck could be considered for release under Section 451 Cr.P.C. While disposing of a petition (R-2), this Court had observed that at the time of recording the conviction, the Court was expected to pass some order regarding disposal of vehicle and while recording acquittal the consequential relief would be available to the respondent. As per section 451 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has to make an order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural

¶33

decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. The petitioner was not one of the co-accused who has carried the wood in truck in question. He was owner of the

¶34

truck which had been given on rent by him to the co-accused.

¶35

Order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Kurukshetra is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner as he is owner of the vehicle.

¶36

Allowed.

¶37

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶38

August 08, 2012 Atul

Ali Sher v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Sher v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Singh Vs Sardari Lal

Sita Vs State of Punjab

Harvinder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Tejinder Chawla Vs National Fertilizers Ltd.

Sukhjiwan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Teja Singh Vs State of Punjab