Allowed

Kapil Kumar S/O Shri Parmeshwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2022CRLMP/441/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the writ petition, quashing orders that confiscated a pickup vehicle used in transporting green timber. The Court held that confiscation under Section 55 requires prior conviction, which did not exist. Custody was restored to the petitioner upon bond.

What did the court decide?

Possession of the pickup vehicle (RJ-18-GB-9014) handed over to the petitioner on 'Supurdgi' upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with one surety and an undertaking to produce the vehicle as requ

Kapil Kumar S/O Shri Parmeshwar Lal Vs State of… — Environment and Pollution | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.441/2021

¶3

Kapil Kumar S/o Shri Parmeshwar Lal, aged about 26 yeas R/o Ward No. 16, Buhana Mod, Singhana Tehsil Buhana Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Regional Forest Officer Khetari, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶9

: Mr. Inder Raj Saini, Advocate : Mr. S.S. Mahla, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA Order

¶11

05/07/2022 :

¶12

The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Revision Petition No.37/2020, whereby revision petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The revision petition was preferred against the order dated 30.09.2020 passed by Appellate Authority-cum-Chief Conservator Forest, Jaipur, who dismissed the appeal preferred by petitioner against order dated 31.08.2020 passed by Authorized Authority-cum-Assistant Conservator Forest, Jhunjhunu, whereby the Authorized Authority-cum-Assistant Conservator Forest confiscated Pickup bearing registration No.RJ-18GB-9014, used in transporting green timber ( khejri , neem & etc) and seized by range Forest Officer alongwith his staff, Jhunjhunu on 27.06.2020.

¶13

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is registered owner of the Pickup bearing

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CRLMP-441/2021]

¶16

registration No. RJ-18-GB-9014. Counsel has submitted an application under the provisions of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 for release of the Pickup, in question, on ’ Supurdginama ’ but instead of passing an order on interim custody of vehicle Authorized Authority-cum-Assistant Conservator Forest, Jhunjhunu, passed an order dated 31.08.2020 with regard to confiscation of the pickup vehicle. This order was affirmed by Appellate Authority-Cum-Chief Conservator Forest without mentioning a word about the prayer of interim custody of the petitioner. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge did also not consider the matter in crux and he also passed the impugned order as if the matter before him was with regard to confiscation of the pickup vehicle.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and have gone through all the material made available on record.

¶18

Under provisions of Section 53 Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 the seized vehicle can be released on execution by the owner thereof a bond for production of the same when and where directed to produce it, whereas provisions relating to proceedings of the confiscation have been enshrined in Section 52-A to C of the Act of 1953.

¶19

Section 55 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 reads as

¶20

follows :-

¶21

“55. Forest Produce, tools etc. when liable to confiscation.(1) All timber or forest produce which is not the property of State Government and in respect of which a forest offence has been committed, and all machinery, arms, tools, boats, cattle, vehicle, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing any forest offence, shall, subject to the provisions of Section 52, 52A, 52B and 52C be liable to confiscation upon conviction of the offender for such forest offence.] (2) Such confiscation may be in addition to any other punishment prescribed for such offence.”

¶22

On conjoint reading of all the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Forest Act, it is clear that the vehicle used for transportation of forest produce without valid permit can be very much seized by the

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CRLMP-441/2021]

¶25

concerned Forest Officer and the same can be confiscated as well but confiscation can be ordered only after conviction of the offender for such forest offence subject to the procedure laid down under Section 52A-C.

¶26

In the instant matter, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted, at bar that trial for the alleged Forest Act has yet not been concluded and nobody has been convicted. In view of Section 55 of Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and the submissions made before this Court at bar, the impugned order passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I under Section 52-B, order dated 30.09.2020 passed by Appellate Authority-cum-Chief Conservator Forest, Jaipur under Section 52-A and order dated 31.08.2020 passed by Authorized Authority-cum-Assistant Conservator Forest, Jhujhunu passed under Section 52 (1 to 4) are completely in contravention of the provisions of 55 of Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953.

¶27

Looking to fact that the trial for forest offence will take time and the pick-up, in question, is lying idle since 27.06.2020 and the petitioner is ready to execute a bond for compliance of any condition imposed on him, it will be more in the interest of justice, that custody of the vehicle, in question be handed over to the petitioner until the conviction, if any, in the trial for any forest offence.

¶28

Therefore, the criminal writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I is quashed and set aside and it is ordered that the possession of pickup bearing Registration No.RJ-18-GB-9014, in F.I.R. No.67/70 dt.27.06.2020 registered at Police Station Regional Forest Officer, Khetri District Jhunjhunu, should be handed over to the petitioner on ‘ Supurdgi ’ on his

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

[CRLMP-441/2021]

¶31

furnishing ‘ Supurdginama ’ for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with one surety for the same amount and an undertaking to produce the vehicle, in question before the concerned court as and when it required. The owner shall keep the condition of the vehicle intact and shall not transfer, mortgage on alienate the vehicle or damage it and change its shape in any manner. The petitioner shall also furnish photographs of the vehicle showing its numbers, colour etc. It is made clear that in future, if the vehicle is found to have been used in similar offence, the same would be liable to be seized.

¶32

Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶33

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J.

¶34

ashok/86

Kapil Kumar S/O Shri Parmeshwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Kumar S/O Shri Parmeshwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

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

Manroop Singh S/O Shri Malaram B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Inox Wind Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Rafiq S/O Deenu Vs State of Rajasthan

Tata Capital Ltd, Kota, Rajasthan Vs State of Raj Asthan and Anr.

Ramesh Chand Vs Ravi Kant Tiwari and Ors.

Alok Tripathi and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.