R.P. Dholakia, J.@mdashThe petitioner, by way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the Judgment & Order dated 28th September, 1998 passed by the Hon''ble Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1997 dismissing the Appeal preferred against the order of confiscation of the Truck bearing Registration No. GTH 7069 of the ownership of the petitioner passed by the Authorized Officer i.e. the Range Forest Officer, District : Panchmahal dated 15.12.1997.
2. The short facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the truck bearing Registration No. GTH 7069 belonging to the petitioner was intercepted by the Range Forest Officer, Vejalpur and the Mobile Squad of the Forest Department on Kalol-Vejalpur road. Upon making search, 106 pieces of teakwood logs admeasuring 4.306 cubic meter were found. Therefore, the Range Forest Officer asked pass or permit for the transportation of the said muddamal, however, the said truck driver did not have any such document and, hence, the Range Forest Officer seized the same u/s 52 of the Forest Act and, thereafter, offence came to be registered. The truck driver was arrested for the offence punishable u/s 41(2)(b) of the Forest Act. Thereafter, the inquiry was carried out and report to that effect dated 16.09.1997 was forwarded to the Authorized Officer, who issued notice to the owner of the vehicle i.e. the petitioner herein to show case as to why the said truck should not be confiscated. After considering the reply filed by the petitioner to the said show cause notice, the Authorized Officer considered the documents and the statements as well as report of the Range Forest Officer and, thereafter, passed the order to confiscate the said truck. The Authorized Officer has considered following documents:
FIR regarding the offence No. 28/96-97.
Format containing details of teakwood logs seized.
Panchnama prepared on 23-09-97.
The statement of driver.
The statement of the present petitioner as the truck owner.
The statement of the purchaser of teakwood logs.
The statements of one Salam Mohmad Gora and Suleman Abdul Shaikh.
The statements of the persons from whom the said teakwood logs alleged to have been purchased.
3. Reply to the notice given by the present petitioner.
4. Against the aforesaid order of confiscation, the present petitioner has filed the Appeal before the Court of Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra, which came to be numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1997, wherein it has been mainly contended that the Authorized Officer has not considered the fact that no forest offence was committed in respect of teakwood logs, which have been seized by the Range Forest Officer. It is further contended that the teakwood logs, which were seized by the Range Forest Officer, are not the property of the Government and, therefore, the provisions contained in Section 61(a)(b) of the Forest Act are not applicable to the present case. It is also contended that the presumption u/s 69 of the Forest Act is not available to the present case on hand and, therefore, the order is illegal, without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also contended that the Authorized Officer should have settled the case as per the provisions contained in Section 68 read with Section 61(g) by ordering the payment of a sum of money by way of compensation for the offence which the offender is alleged to have committed. It is also contended that no sufficient opportunity has been given by the Authorized Officer to the petitioner to explain as required u/s 61B of the Forest Act. Lastly, it has been contended that the Forest Officer had not supplied the necessary document relied upon by him and, therefore also, the impugned order is illegal.
5. After giving ample opportunity to the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and after taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence, which are part of the record, the Court below has confirmed the order of confiscation passed by the Authorized Officer dated 15.12.1997, which gave rise to file present petition.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Y.M. Thakkar and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms.Falguni Patel for the respondents. I have also taken into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence and the reasoned judgment delivered by the Authorized Officer as well as the Learned District & Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra.
7. From the evidence on record, it is established that the truck, in which, teakwood logs were being transported and which was of the ownership of the petitioner and was driven by his driver, was confiscated on 29.03.1997 as it was intercepted on Kalol-Vejalpur road by the Authorized Officer. The Range Forest Officer made search of the said truck and found 106 teakwood logs, but for transporting the same, the driver of the said truck was not having any pass or permit and, therefore, the same have been seized under panchnama along with the truck in question. It is also established that the statements of the driver as well as the present petitioner have been recorded, which clearly reveals that they had no pass or permit to transport the forest produce. Not only that, the present petitioner has categorically admitted that he had not given instruction to his driver not to transport illegal forest produce. Not only that, the petitioner has relied upon the affidavits filed by Kulsinh Upadiya Pavara, Nandu Dhana Pavara, Mayala Dhana Pavara, all resident of Koshalpura, who have sent their affidavits by Registered Post A.D. directly to the authority, which also reveals that they had pass and permit for 105 teakwood logs, but the log, which they were having, was having hammer seal on both ends of wooden logs. However, as per the evidence on record, it has been found that the muddamal teakwood logs found while intercepting the truck was not having any hammer seal and, therefore, both the competent authorities have turtle down defence raised by the petitioner that it was not a stolen goods, but it was belonging to the owner and, hence, such contention is also not acceptable. Except that, there is no positive evidence on record, which shows that the owner had no knowledge that the driver of the said truck is illegally transporting forest produce. On the contrary, his own statement goes against his contention. As far as the forest produce is concerned, same has been dealt with by the Court below in detail and came to a conclusion that it was a teakwood logs and was a forest produce. Over and above that, it is also required to be noted that the Court has got power to modify the order passed by the Authority, but while doing so, it is the discretionary power and while not utilizing the same, the Court has dealt with as to why he is not utilizing the same in detail and observation to that effect is made in paragraph No. 28 of the impugned Judgment and Order, which reads as under:
28. So far as the submission regarding this Court''s power to modify the order is concerned, it appears that in view of the nature of the proceedings, this Court is not inclined to exercise that power. The illegal activity of cutting trees in the forest has become rampant into state and country as a whole, it affects the environment of the whole country, as a result of which, the health of the citizens of the country, but also the country as a whole. It is also said that landslide in the hill and less amount of rain is also the result of such illicit activity of cutting the forest trees. The area of forest land is also decreased. Therefore, such persons who are helping the offenders who are involved in the forest offences should not be shown any leniency or mercy. They are required to be dealt with strictly and they can be stopped and the like minded persons can be stopped from indulging into such activity, only if such strong steps of confiscation of vehicle as well as goods are taken. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to modify the order of confiscation and substitute same by penalty.
8. Even the court below has also considered the law laid down by this Court and has rightly come to the conclusion that the order dated 15.12.1997 passed by the authorized Officer is just, legal and proper and has confirmed the same by order dated 28-9-1998 in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1997 and no case is made out by the applicant to interfere with the said two concurrent judgments and orders.
9. Hence, this Special Criminal Application is required to be rejected. The judgment and order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra and confirmed by the concerned authority are required to be confirmed and are accordingly confirmed. This Special Criminal Application is rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
